Skip to main content

Full text of "A History Of Babylon"

See other formats 





BABYLON 



A HISTORY OF BABYLONIA 
AND ASSYRIA 

From Prehistoric Times to the Persian Conquest. 


By LEONARD W. KING, Litt.D., F.S.A. 

Vol. I. — A HISTORY QF SUMER AND AKKAD : 
An Account of the Ejtrly Races of Baoyloaia from 
Prehistoric Times to the* Foundation of the 
Babylonian Monarchy. 

Vol. II^-A HISTORY OF BABYLON from the Founda- 
• tion of the Monarchy to the Persian Conquest. 

Vol. III.— A HISTORY OF ASSYRIA from the Earliest 
Period to the Falk of Nincvel*. 

Vol. III. is in ^repartition. 

Each Volume separately, bound in cloth, 18*. net ; or, L»r the Thiee 
Volumes (if subscribed for at one time), £2 10s. 


London » CHATTO & 4VJNDUS. 









A HISTORY 

OF 

BABYLON 

• • 

FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE MONARCHY 
TO TH? PERSIAN CONQUEST 


BY 

LEONARD W. KING, Litt.D., F.S.A. 

Assistant Keeper of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities in the British Museum 
Professor of Assyrian and Babylonian Archaeology in 
the University of London 



WITH MAP, PLANS, AND ILLUSTRATIONS 


LONDON 

CHATTO & WINDUS 


1919 



PRINTED BY r 

WH.LIAW CLOWES AND SONS LIMITED 
LONDON AN P BECCLES, ENGLAND. 


AU rights resented 



PREFACE 

• 

In the first volume of this work an account was given 
of the early races of Babylonia from prehistoric times 
to the foundation of the monarchy. I.t closed at the 
polht when the city of Babylon was* about to secure 
the permanent leadership under her dynasty of West- 
Semitic kings. The present volume describes the 
fortunes of Babylonia during the whole of the dynastic 
period, artd it completes the history of the southern 
kingdom. East autumn, in consequence of the war, it 
was decided to postpone its publication*; but, at the 
request of the publishers, I have now finished it and 
seen it through the press. At a time when British 
troops are in occupation of Southern Mesopotamia, 
the appearance of a. work upon its earlier history may 
perhaps not be considered altogether inopportune. 

Thanks to recent excavation Babylon has ceased to 
be an abstraction, and we are now able to reconstitute 
the main features of ‘one of the most famous cities of 
the ancient 'world. Unlike Ashur and Nineveh, the 
great capitals of Assyria, Babylon survived with but 
little change under the A chamenian kings of Persia, 
•and from the time of Herodotus onward \ve possess 
accounts eff her magnificence, which recent research has 
in great part substantiated. It is true thaWve must 
modify the description Herodotus has left us of her 
•size, but on all other points the accuracy of his informa- 
tion is confirmed. The Lion Frieze of the Citadel and 
the *en»m£ lied beasts of the Ishtar Gate enable us to 
understand something of the spell she oast. It is . 



vi PREFACE 

claimed that the site has been identified of her most 
famous building, the Hanging Gardens of the royal 
palace ; and, if that should prove to be the case, they 
can hardly be said to have justified their reputation. 
Far more impressive is the Tower of Babel with 
its huge Peribolos, enclosing what has been aptly 
described as the V atican of Babylon. 

The majority of the buildings uncovered date from 
the Neo-Babylonian period, but they may be regarded 
as typical of Babylonian civilization as a whole. For 
temples were rebuilt again and again on the old lines, 
and religious conservatism retained the mud-brick walls 
and primitive decoration of earlier periods. Even 
Nabopolassar’s royal palace must have borne a close 
resemblance to that of Hammurabi ; and the street net- 
work of the city appears to have descended without 
much change from the time of the First Dynasty. The 
system .which Hammurabi introduced into the legis- 
lation of his country may perhaps have been reflected 
in the earliest attempt at town-planning on a scientific 
basis. The most striking fact about Babylon’s history 
is the continuity of her culture during the whole of the 
dynastic period. The principal modification which took 
place was in the system of land-tenure, the primitive 
custom of tribal or collective proprietorship giving place 
to private ownership pnder the policy of purchase and 
annexation deliberately pursued by the West-Semitic 
and Kassite conquerors. A parallel to the earlier 
system and its long survival may be seen in the village 
communities q£ India at the present day. , 

In contrast to that of .Assyria, the .history of 
Babylon is riiore concerned with the development and 
spread of a civilization than with the. military achieve- 
ments of a race. Her greatest period of power fras 
under her first line of kings ; and in after ages her 
foreign policy was dictated solely by her commercial 
( needs. The letters from Boghaz Keui, like tho&e from 



PREFACE 


vii 

Tell el-Amarna, suggest that, in keeping her trade con- 
nexions open, she relied upon diplomacy in preference 
to force. That she could fight at need is proved by her 
long struggle with the northern kingdom, but in the 
later period her troops were never a match for the 
trained legions of Assyria. It isi possible that Nabo- 
polassar and his son owed their empire in great measure 
to the protecting arm of Media ; and Nebuchadnezzar’s 
success at Carchemish does not prove that the Baby- 
lonian character had suddenly changed. A recently 
recovered letter throws light on the. unsatisfactory 
state of at least one section of the army during 
Nebuchadnezzar’s later years, and incidentally it sug- 
gests that Gfobryas, who facilitated the Persian occupa- 
tion, may be identified with a Babylonian general of 
that name. With the fall of Media, he may perhaps 
have despaired of any successful opposition on his 
country’s part. ? • • 

Babylon’s great wealth, due to her soil and semi- 
tropical climate, enabled her to survive successive 
foreign dominations and to impose, her civilization on 
her conquerors. Her caravans carried tfiat civilization 
far afield, and one of the most fascinating problems of 
her history is to trace the effect of such intercourse in 
the literary remains of other nations. Muth recent 
research has been devfited to this subject, and the great 
value of its results has given rise in some quarters to 
the view that the religious development of Western 
Asia, and in a minor degree of Europe, was dominated 
•by the influence of. Babylon. The theory* which under- 
lies such speculation assufnes a reading of Jhe country’s 
history, which cannot be ignored. In the concluding 
chapter an estimate has been attempted of the extent 
to ,whiah the assumption is in harmony with historical 
research.. 

Th^ delay in the publication of this volume has 
rendered it possible to incorporate recent discoveries, 



viii PREFACE 

some of which have not as yet appeared in print. 
Professor A. T. Clay has been fortunate enough to 
acquire for the Yale University Collection a complete 
list of the early kings of Larsa, in addition to other 
documents with an important bearing on the history of 
Babylon. He- is at present preparing the texts for 
publication, and has meanwhile very kindly sent me 
transcripts of the pertinent material with full per- 
mission to make use of them. The information 
afforded as to the overlapping of additional dynasties 
with tne First Dynasty of Babylon has thrown new 
light on the circumstances which led to the rise of 
Babylon to power. But these and other recent dis- 
coveries, in their general effect, do not * involve any 
drastic changes in the chronological scheme as a whole. 
They lead rather to local rearrangements, vdiich to a 
great extent counterbalance onfe another. Under 
Babyloh’s later dynasties her history and that of 
Assyria are so* closely inter-related that it is difficult to 
isolate the southern kingdom. An attempt has been 
made to indicate . broadly the clucf phases of the 
conflict, and the manner in which Babylonian interests 
alone were affected. In order to avoid needless 
repetition, a fuller treatment of the period is postponed 
to the third volume of this work. A combined account 
will then also be given of the literature and civilization 
of both countries. * 

I take this opportunity of expressing my thanks to 
Monsieur F. Thureau-Dangin, Conservateur-adjoint 
of the JV^usedms of the Louvre, for allowing me last 
spring to study unpublished*historical* material in his 
charge^ The information he placed at my, disposal I 
found most useful during subsequent work in the 
Ottoman Museum at Constantinople shortly, before 
the war. Reference has already been made to my 
indebtedness to Professor Clay, who has furnished me 
from time*to time with other unpublished material, for 



PREFACE 


IX 


which detailed acknowledgment is made in the course 
of this work. With Professor C. F. Burney I have, 
discussed many of the problems connected with the 
influence of Babylon upon Hebrew literature ; and I am 
indebted to Professor A. C. Headlam for permission to 
reprint portions of an article on tjiat subject, which I 
contributed in 1912 to the Church Quarterly Review. 

To Dr. E. A. \yallis Budge my thanks are' due, 
as he suggested that 1 should write these histories, and 
he has given me the benefit of his advice. To him, as 
to Sir Frederic Kenyon and Mr. D. G. IJogarth, I am 
indebted for permission to make use .of illustrations, 
which have appeared in official publications of, the 
British Museum. My thanks are also due to Monsieur 
Ernest Lcroux of Paris for, allowing me to reproduce 
some of th$ plates from the “ Memoires de la Delegation 
en Perse,” published by him under the editorship of 
Monsieur J. de Morgan ; and to the Council and 
Secretary of the Society of Biblical Arfchajology for 
the loan of a block employed to illustrate a paper I 
contributed to their .Proceedings. TJie greater number 
of the plates illustrating the excavations are from 
photographs taken on the spot ; and the plans and 
drawings figured in the text are the work of Mr. E. J. 
Lambert and Mr. C. O. Waterhouse, who have spared 
no pains to ensure th«r accuracy. The designs upon 
the cover of this volume represent the tWo most promi- 
nent figures in Babylonian tradition. In the panel on 
the face of the cover the national hero Gilgamesh is 
portrayed, whose <jpic reflects the Babylonian heroic 
ideal. The panel on the buck of the binding contains a 
figure of Marduk, the city-god of Babylon, grasping in 
his right hand the •flaming sword with which he severed 
the dragon of chaos. 


L. W. KING. 




CONTENTS 


CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTORY: BABYLON’S PLACE IN THE HISTORY OP 
ANTIQUITY 

- # rAQE 

ylon as a centre of civilization — Illustrations of foreign influence — 
Babylon’s share in the origin of the culture she distributed — Causes 
which led to, her rise as capital — Advantages of her geographical 
position — Transcontinental lines of traffic — The Euphrates route, 
the Royal Hoad, and the Gates <jf Zagros — Her supremacy based 
on the strategic and commercial qualities of her site — The political 
centre oft gravity in Babylonia illustrated by the later qapitals, 
Seleucia, Ctesiphon, anftl Baghdad — The Persian Gulf as barrier, 
and as channel of international commerce — Navigation on the 
Euphrates and the Tigris — Causes of Babylon’s deposition— Her 
treatment by Cyrus, Alexander, and Seleucus — The Arab conquest 
of Mesopotamia instructive for comparison with the era of early 
city-states — Effect of slackening of international communications — 
Effect of restoration of commercial intercourse with the West - 
TTiree main periods «>f Babylon’s foreign influence — Extent to 
which she moulded the cultural development of (fther races — 
Traces of contact in Hejorcw religion ana in Greek mythology — 
Recent speculation on the subject to be tested by the study of 
history ... ... .. 1 


CHAPTER y 

THE CITY OF* BABYLON AND ITS REMAINS: / DISCUSSION OF 
THE RECENT EXCAVATIONS 

The site of Babylon in popular tradition — Observations of Benjamin of 
Tudela and John Elured — Exaggerations of early travellers — The 
description of Herodotus — Modern survey and excavation— Charac- 
teristics of.Bahylonian architecture— The architect’s ideal — Com- 
parison of Babylonian and Assyrian architectural design- -*Difliculties 
of Batylqfiian excavation— 1 The extent of Babylon and the clb&ical 
tradition — Remains ^of the ancient city — The Walls of Babylon — 

The Outer City-wall — The Mound Babil — The Kasr — The Inner 
City-yall — Imgur-Bel and Nimitti-B61 — Quay- walls and fortifica- 
tions — Nebuchadnezzar’s river-fortification — Change in the course 
of the IJuphrat^p — Palaces of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar — 
The official courts of the palace — Al-Bit-shar-Babili — The Throne- 
Room%nd»its enamelled facade — The private palace and the women’s 
apartments — The Hanging Gardens of Babylon — The Islftar Gate 

xi 



Xll 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

and its Hulls and Dragons — Later defences of the Southern Citadel 
• — The Lion Frieze — T lie Procession Street — Temples of Babylon— 

E-makh, the temple of Ninmakh — Altars in the Babylonian and 
Hehrew cults — The unidentified temple — The temple of lshtar of 
Akkad — Religious mural decoration — The temple of Ninib — E-sagila 
and the lower of Babylon — 'Hie Pcribolos or Sacred Precincts ~ 
E-zida and the Temple- tower of Borsippa — The Euphrates bridge — 
Merkes and the street net-work of Babylon — Strata of different 
periods — Early Babylonfan town-planning — Material influence of 
the West-Semitic Dynasty — Continuity of Babylonian culture ... 14 


CHAPTER III 

THE DYNASTIES OF BABYLON : THE CHRONOLOGICAL 8CHEME 
IN TfiE LIGHT OF RECENT DISCOVERIES 

Chronology the skeleton of history — Principal defect in the Babylonian 
scheme The Dynasties of Nisin, Larsa and Babylon — Discovery 
of a List of the kings of Larsa — Introduction of fresh uncertainty- 
Relationship of the kings of Babylon and Nisin — Absence of 
synchronisms — -Evidence of date -formula* — A fresh and sounder 
line of research — Double-dates supply the missing link t for the 
chronology — The Nisin era — Explanation of t the double-dates The 
problem of Rim-Sin — Method of reconciling data - Another line of 
evidence- Archaeological research and the Second Dynasty of the 
Kings' List — Date-formuhe of Hammurabi, Samsu-iluna and 
Iluma-ilum- — Methods of fixing period of First Dynasty - Amrni- 
zadugas omens from the planet Venus — Combinations of Venus, 
sun, and moon — Possibility of fixing period of observations —Alter- 
native dates in their relation to historical fesults- — The time of 
harvest in fai?ning-ou\ contracts of the period — Probable date for 
the lirst Dynasty — Re-examination of chronological notices in later 
texts I he Dynasties of Berossus and the beginning of his historical 
period Effect of recent discoveries on the chronological scheme as 
a whole —Our new picture of the rise of Babylon 87 


Chapter iV 

< 9 

THE WESTERN SEMITES AND THE FIRST DYNASTY OF BABYLON 

Original home of the Amurru, or Western Semites— Arabia one of the 
main breeding-grounds of the human rare— The great Semitic 
migrations au*d their cause — Evidence of diminution oY rainfall in 
Arabia — r H\e life of the pastoral nonx.d conditioned hy thp desert — 

The change from pastoral to agricultural life— Successive stages of 
CanairfKte civilization — TTie neolithic inhabitants and the^Amorite 
migration— Canaan i tea of history and their culttre Eastern Syria 
and the middle Euphrates— Recent excavation* at Carchemish and ., 
its neighbourhood — Early Babylonian cylinder-seals on the Sajpr— 

Trade of Carchemish with Northern Babylonia- West Semitic 
settlements on the Khabur— The kingdom of K liana— The Amorite 
invasion of Babylonia— The Dynasties of Nisin andS^arsa - "Recent 
discoveries at Ashur— Prot* Mitannians—The Western Semites in 
Babylon <and their conflict with Assyria- Early struggles and 



CONTENTS 


Xlll 


PAGE 

methods of expansion — The Elamite conquest of Larsa — The three- 
cornered contest of Nisin, Elam and Babylon — 'The fall of Nisin • 
and the duel between Babylon and Elam — Hammurabi’s defeat or 
Rim-Sin and the annexation of Sumer by Babylon — Extent of Ham- 
murabi’s empire — Hammurabi the founder of Babylon’s greatness — 

His work as law-giver and administrator 119 


CHAPTER V 

THE AGE OP HAMMURABI AND ITS INFLUENCE ON LATER 

PERIODS 

The energy of the Western Semite and his perpetuation of a dying 
culture — His age one of transition — Contemporaneous evidence on 
social and political conditions — The three grades in the social scale 
fcf Babylon — The nobles a racial aristocracy— Origin and rights of 
the middle class - Condition of slaves — Pastoral and agricultural 
life in early Babylonia— Regulations sanction long-established 
custom — Thfc corvee for public works — Canals and fishing-rights — 
Methods of irrigation and their modern equivalents — Survival of 
the Babylonian plough and grain-drill — Importance of the date- 
palm and encouragement of plantations — Methods of transport by 
water — Tne commercial activities of Babylon and the larger cities — 
Partnerships for foreign trade — Life in the towns— Family life in 
early Babylonia — The position of wome n — Privilege% enjoyed by 
votaries -The administration of justice 111 Relation of the crown and 
the priestly hierarchy under the Western Semites — The royal 
regulation of the calendar and the naming of the year — System of 
administration- Changes in the religious sphere and revision of the 
pantheon — Literary activity —The complete semitization of the 
country unaccompanied by any break in culfure — Babylon’s later 
civilization moulded by Hammurabi’s age ... ... ... ... 162 


CHAPTER VI 

** % • 

THE CLOSE OP THE F1HWT DYNASTY* OP BABYLON AND THE 
KItfGS FROM THE COUNTRY OF THJ5 SEA 

Condition of the empire on Samsu-iluna’s accession — Early Kassite raid 
the signal for revolt , assisted by Elamite invasion — Resources of 
Babylon strained in suppressing the rebellion — Rise of an inde- 
pendent kingdom in the Sea-Country on the littoral <*f the Persian 
Gulf — Capacily of th* Sea-Country for defence and Us a toase for 
offensive operations — Sumer elements in its population — 
Babylon’s loss of territory and her struggle with the Shea-Country 
kings— Symptoms of decadence under the later West-Semiti# lftngs 
of Babylon — The deification of royalty and increased luxury of 
litual — Evidence of Babylon’s growing wealth and artistic progress 
uudefc foreign influence — Temporary restoration of Babylon’s power 
under Ammi-ditaua— Renewed activity of the Sea-Country followed 
by grac^ial decline of Babylon — T he close of the West-Semitic 
dynasty brought about or hastened by Hittite invasion — Period of 
local dynasties following the fall of Babylon— Continued succession 
of the Sea-Country kings *. ... 197 



XIV 


CONTENTS 


CHAPTER VII 

« 

THE KASSITE DYNASTY AND ITS RELATIONS WITH EGYPT 
AND THE H1TTITE EMPIRE 

The Kassite conquest of Babylonia — The Kassites probably Aryans by 
, race and akin to the later rulers of Mitanni — Character of their 
rule in Babylon — Their introduction of the horse into Western . 
Asia — The Kassite conquest of the Sea-Country and its annexation 
to Babylon —Gap in our knowledge of the Kassite succession — The 
letters from Tell el-Amarna and Boghaz-Keui-*-Egvpt and Western 
Asia at the close of the fifteenth century — Diplomacy and the 
balance of power — Dynastic marriages and international intercourse 
of the period— Amen -hetep III. and Kadashman-Enlil — Akhenateu 
and his policy of doles — Babylon’s caravans in Syria — The corre- 
spondence of Burna-Buriash and Akhenaten — Egypt’s loss of her 
Asiatic provinces— Rise of the Hittite Empire — The Hittites and 
their civilization — Their capital of Khatti — Their annexation of 
Mitanni and the Egyptian war — The relations of Khattusil with 
Kadashman-turgu and Kadashman-Enlil II. — Character of the 
Hittite correspondence — The growth of Assyria and her relations 
with Babylon — First phase in the long struggle of the two kingdoms 
— The later members of the Kassife Dynasty — Its fall to be traced 
to Elamite invasion — Economic conditions in Babylonir under 
the Kassites — Kudurru-inscriptions or boundary-stones — Their 
evidence on the Babylonian system of land-tenure — Gradual dis- 
appearance o£ tribal proprietorship as a result *>f West-Semitic and 
Kassite policy-j-Transition from collective to private ownership ... 


CHAPTER Vin 

THE LATER DYNASTIES AND THE ASSYRIAN DOMINATION 

Spoils at Susa from the Elamite invasion — Recovery of her territory by 
Babylon under Nebuchadnezzar I. — Renewal of conflicts and 
treaties with Assyria—' ITic devastation of Babylonia b% the Sutu— 
Ephemeral Babylonian dynasties — The state of Sippar typical of 
the condition of the country — Renaissance of Assyria — The con- 
quests of Ashur-nasir-pal and Babylon’s abortive opposition — 
Babylonian art in the ninth century— Intervention of Shalmaneser 
III. in Babylonian politics— His campaign in Chaldea— The kingdom 
of Urartu and" its effect on Assyrian expansion — Independence of 
provincial governments during a relaxation of central control— 
Temporary erecovery of Babylon under Nabonassar — Gradual 
tightening of Assyria’s grasp upon the southern kingdom- 
character of her later empire — Tiglath-pileseer IV. ’s policy of 
deportation and its inherent weakness — The disappearance of 
Urartu as a buffer state — Sargon and Merodach-baladan — Senna- 
cherib’s attempt to destroy Babylon — Esarhad don’s reversal of his 
father’s policy — The Assyrian conquest of Egypt — Ashur-bani-pal 
and the revolt of Shamash-shum-ukiu— The sack of busa— Babylon 

under the Sargonids — The policies of encouragement and coercion 

Effect of fheir alternation ... ... ... ... < 



CONTENTS 


CHAPTER IX 


THE NEO-BABYLONIAN EMPIRE AND THE PERSIAN CONQUEST ‘ 

PAQE 

Nabopolassar and his nascent kingdom — The Scythian invasion and its 
effects — The sons of Ashur-bani-pal — Nabopolassar and the Medes — 

The fall of Nineveh — Division of Assyrian territory — Babylon’s 
conflict with Egypt — Nebuchadnezzar II. and the Battle of Carclie- 
mish — Capture of Jerusalem and deporfhtion df the Jews — 
Occupation of Phoenicia and siege of Tyre — Nebuchadnezzar’s later 
campaign in Egypt — Babylon and the Median suzerainty — Lydia 
under the successors 6f Ardys — Conflict of Cyaxares and Alyattes 
on the Iialys and the intervention of Babylon — Nebuchadnezzar as 
builder — Condition of the Babylonian army in Nebuchadnezzar’s 
closing years and under his successors — Gubaru, the general, and 
the governor of Gutium — Death of Neriglissar — Character of 
Nabonidus— The decaying empire under Median protection — The 
rise of Cyrus — His ease in possessing himself o£ Media, and the 
probable cause — His defeat and capture of Croesus and the fall of 
Lydia — His advance on Babylon — Possibility that Gobryas was a 
native Babylonian — His motive in facilitating the Persian occu- 
pation — Defeat and death of Belshazzar — Popularity of Cyrus in 
Babylon — Tranquillity of the country under Persian rule — 
Babylon’s last bids for independence — Her later history — Survival 
of Baby lofiian cults into tdie Christian era ... 275 

• CHAPTER X • 

GREECE, PALESTINE, AND BABYLON : AN ESTIMATE OP 
CULTURAL INFLUENCE 


Influence of Babylon still apparent in the modern.world — The mother 
of astronomy, and the survival of her ancient system of time- 
division—The political aiyl religious history of the Hebrews in the 
light of Babylonian research — Echoes from Babylonian legends in 
Greek mythology — The Babylonian conception or the universe — The 
astral theory and its comprehensive assumptions — Was Babylonian 
•• religion essentially a star- worship ? — Application of historical^test — 
Evolution of the Babylonian god — Origin of divine emblems and 
animal symbolism — World Ages and fhe astral theory — Late 
evidence and the earlier historical periods — The astral ages of the 
Twins, the Bull and the Ram — Suggested influence of each age 
upon the historical literature of antiquity — The Old Testament and 
the Odyssey under astral interpretation — Astronomical defects of 
the astral theory — The age of Babylonian astronomy — Hipparchus 
t of Nicffia and the precession of the equinoxes — Hebrews and 
Babylonian astrology— Contrast of the Babylonian and Hellenic 
temperaments — Mesopotamia artd the coast-lands of Asia Minor — 

Tales that are told ... ... ... ... ... • ... ... 289 

• • • • 


« APPENDICES 

f. A Comparative List of the Dynasties of NIsin, Lars a, and 

Babylon # 318 

II. A Dynastic List of the Kings of Babylon 320 

Index ... 323 




LIST OF PLATES 


nemo page 

T. Merodach-baladan II., King of Babylon, making a grant of 
land to Bel-akhe-erba, governor of Babylon Frontispiece 

II. (i) The temple-tower of K-zida at Borsippa. (ii) The Lion 
# of Babylon on the Kasr Mound ... # ... ... ... 18 

III. The Throne Room in Nebuchadnezzar’s palace at Babylon, 

shojving the recess in the back wall where the throne 
once stood ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 38 

IV. Eastern Towers of the Ishtar Gate, the portions preserved # 

paving formed the foundation of the final gateway ... 48 

V. Trench showing apportion of the Sacred Way of Babylon, to 

the east of the Peri bolos ... ... _ ... .... 60 

• # 

VI. Two views of the Temple of Ninib in course of # excavation ... 72 

VII. Brick of Sin-idinnam, King of Larsa, recording the cutting 
of a canal and the restoration of the Temple of the Moon- 
god in the city of Ur ... ... .. % ... ... ... 90 

VIII. Hammurabi, King of Babylon, from a relief in the British 
Museum, dedicated on his behalf to the West Semitic 
goddess j Ashjrat.um hy Itur-ashdum, a provincial governor 96 

JX. Brick of Warad-Sin, King of Larsa, recording building 
* operations in the city of Ur ... ... ... ..• ... 104 

X. The Citadel Mound of Carchemish from the north-west ... 128 

XI. Upper portion of the Code of Hammurabi, efigraved with a 
scene representing the king receiving his laws from the 
Sun-god 144 

XII. (i) Bronze cone and votive figure, (ii) Stone cylinder with 

a votive inscription of Warad-Sin, King of Larsa ... ... 152 

XIII. Portion of the text of ffiRnmurabi’s Code, Columns 6-8 ... 168 

XIV. A m odern gufa, a form of coracle described by Hered«tus 

and represmited on the monuments ... ... ... ... 176 

XV. (i) A small kelek on the Tigris at Baghdad, (ii) Ferry- 

* boats on the Euphrates at Birejik ... ... ... ... 184 

XVI. Iijipressic^is^of Babylonian cylinder-seals, engraved with 

mythological subjects ... ... ... ... 192 

XVII. Impressions of Kassite cylinder-seals *. ... 198 

xvii 



xviii LIST OF PLATES 

FACING PAGE 

XVIII. Brick of Sin-gashid, Kin# of Erech, recording the building 

of his palace in that city 210 

XIX. Head of a colossal statue of Amen-hetep III. 220 

XX. Hittite hieroglyphic inscription at Carchemisli ... ... 240 

XXI. Kassite kudurrus, or boundary-stones, set up in the reigns of 

Meli-Shij>ak II. # and Nazi-rnaruttash 248 

XXII. Divine emblems on the upper part of a kudurru, or houndary- 
stone, engraved with a charter of privileges granted by 
Nebuchadnezzar I. ... ... ... ... ... ... 254 

XXIII. Memorial-tablet of Nabu-aplu-iddina, King of Babylon, 

recording his restoration of the Sun-temple at Sippar ... 260 

XXIV. Shalmaneser III. receiving the submission of the Chaldeans, 
from the bronze sheathing of his Gates in the British 
Museum ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 268 

XXV. Asliur-bani-pal, represented carrying a builder’s basket, 
as the restorer of E-sagila, the temple of Marduk at 
Babylon # 272 

X\VI. Bronze door-step from E-zida, the temple of I^abu at 
Borsippa, inscribed with the nam<fc and titles of Nebu- 
chadnezzar II. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 278 

XXVII. (i) Baked clay foundation-cylinder of ifabonidus, referring 
to the* defeat of Astyages by Cyrus, (ii) Baked clay 
foundation-cylinder of Cyrus, recording his entry into 
Babylon f( without battle and without lighting” ... ... 282 

XXVIII. Impresses of Neo-Babylonian and Persian cylinder-seals ... 286 

XXIX. Limestone statue of the god Nabu at Jliinrud 292 

XXX. Divine emblems sculptured on the lower portion of the 
houndary-stone engraved with a charter of Nebuchad- 
nezzar I. (cp. Plate XXII.) 29$ 

XXXI. Two views of a clay piodel of a sheet’s liver with the surface 

divided up and labelled for purposes of divination ... 302 

XXXII. A Neo- Babylonian treatise on astronomy, inscribed with 
classified lists of the principal stars and constellations, 
heliacal risings and settings, culminations in the south, etc. 310 



ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT 


PIG. 

1. 


2 . 


3. 


4. 


5. 


6 . 


7. 


8 . 


9. 

10 . 

11 . 


12 . 

13. 

a: 

15. 


10 . 


17. 

18. 


19. 


20 . 


21 . 

22 . 


23. 


Diagram to illustrate the political centre of gravity in 
Babylonia 

Map of the neighbourhood of Babylon and Birs-Nimrud ; after 
the India Office Map 

Plan of the ruins of Babylon ; after Koldewey and Andrae ... 
Ground-plan of part of the outer city-wall ? after Koldewey 
and Andrae 

Conjectural restoration of the Southern Citadel ; after Andrae 
Plan of the Southern Citadel ; after Koldewey, Reuther, and 

Wetzel # 

Ground-plan of quay^-w.ills and fortification-walls in the north- 
west corner of the Southern Citadel ; after Koldewey 
Section of the qua$ T -walls and fortification-walls aloifg the ndrth 

front of the Southern Citadel ; after Andrae # 

Plan of the Throne Room of Nebuchadnezzar II. and part of 
the private palace ; after Koldewey 
Design in enamellod brick from the fa^ad^of theThrone Room 
Plan of the north-east corner of the palace with* the Vaulted 
Building; after Koldewey 
Bull in enamelled brick from the Ishtar Gate ... 

Dragon in enamelled brick from the Ishtar Gate 
Ground-plan of the Ishtar Gate ; after Koldewey ...• 
Section of the Ishtar (Site * after Andrae 
Diagram fo show the arrangement of the beast* of the Ishtar 
Gate; after Koldewey ... 

Enamelled fragment of the Ishtar Gate still in position 
Plan of the later defences of the Citadel upon the north, 
showing the wajls with the Lion Friozo and tlie^Ishtar Gate 
Lion frgm the frieze of tli# Sacred Way to the north of the 
Ishtar Gate ... ... ... ... ... *... 

Gr<f«!!d-plan of^E-makh, the temple of the goddess Ninfhaffh ; 
after Andrae 

Conjectural restoration of E-makh ; after Andrae 
Gold plaque, with architectural design, from a Neo-Babylonian 
burial , enlargement after photo, by Koldewey 
G#ound-plan of the unidentified temple known as “ / ” ; after 
Andrae * 

xix 


FA.GE 

9 

10 

23 

25 

28 

30 

32 

33 

42 

43 

46 

50 

51 

52 

53 

54 

56 

57 

58 

84 

65 

G7 

68 



i* ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT 


FIG. PAGE 

24. Conjectural restoration of the unidentified temple known as 

“ Z ” ; after Andrae and Koldewey 69 

25. Ground -plan of the temple of Ishtar of Akkad ; after Reuther 70 

2(5. Ground -plan of the temple of Ninib ; after Andrae 71 

27. Ground-plan of E-temen-anki and E-sagila ; after Wetzel ... 74 

28. Conjectural reconstruction of E-temen-anki and E-sagila ; after 

Andrae *... :.. ... ... ... ... ... ... 75 

29. Ground- plan of E-zida and the temple-tower of Nabti at 

Borsippa ; after Koldewey ... ... ... ... ... 78 

30. Rough engraving of a temple-tower upon a boundary -stone ... 79 

31. Plan of the Merkes Mound, showing part of the street net- 

work of Babylon ; after Koldewey ... ... ... ... 83 

32-33. Arabs of the seventh century n.c., from a sculpture in the 

Nineveh Gallery of the British Museum ... ... ...«123f 

34. Head of an archaic limestone figure from Ashur ... ... 137 

35-36. Heads of archaic figures from Ashur and Ai ello ... * ... 138 

37-39. Examples of archaic sculpture from Ashur and Tello, exhibit- 
ing the same conventioil in the treatment of woollen 
garments ... ... ... ... ... ... r . ... 140 

40. The Old Babylonian form of plough in Use ; after ('lay ... 175 

41. Assyriam kelek on the Tigris ; after Laya^d 178 

42. The Assyrian prototype of the gufa ; from a bas-relief in the 

British Museum ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 179 

43. Assyrian raft of logs on the Tigris ; from a bas-relief in the 

British Muse uip * 180 

44. Swamp in r Southern Habylonia, or the Sea-Country ; after a 

bas-relief at Nineveh ... ... * ... ... 201 

45. The zebu or humped oxen of the Sea-Country; after a bas- 

relief from Nineveh in the British Museum ... ... ... 203 

46. AkHfenaten, with his queen and infant daughters, on the "* 

balcony of their paliice ; after N. A(i. Davies ... ... 223 

47-48. Representations of Ilittites in Egyptian sculpture ; after 

Meyer ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 226 

49. Hittite foot-soldiers at the Battle of Kadesh ; after Meyer ... 227 

50. Hittite chieftain, a captive of Raineses 111. ; after Meyer ... 228 

61. Eigiye, probably of a Hittite king, fron\ the Royal Gate at • 

Khatti ; after a photo, by Puehstcin ... ... € ... ... 229 

52. The Rcf/al Gate of Khatti, the capital of the Hittites, viewed 

9 from the outside ; after Puchstein ... ... ... 231 

53. Conjectural restoration of a Hittite gateway viewed from out- 

side ; after Puchstein < ... 232 

64. Longitudinal section of the Lower Western Gateway at Kliatti ; 

after Puchstein ... ... ... ... ...» ... 234 

55. Transverse section of the Lower Western Gateway at Khutti ; 

after Puchstein ... ... ... 236 



ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT 


XXI 


FIG. PAGBJ 

56. One of the two sacred boats of Khonsu, the Egyptian Moon- 

god, who journeyed into Cappadocia to cast out a devil from 
a Hittite princess ; after Rosellini ... ... ... ... 238 

57. Raineses II. offering incense to one of the boats of Khonsu 

before he started on his journey ; after Rosellini 239 

58. Scene representing Nabu-mukin-apli sanctioning a transfer of 

landed property ... ... ... ... .... ... 258 

59. Marduk and his dragon from a votive offering of Marduk- 

zakir-shum ; after Weissbach ... ... ... ... 20] 

60. The Assyrian army in Chaldea, 851 b.c. ; from the Gates of 


Shalmaneser in the British Museum ... ... ... 202 

01. A Chaldean town of the ninth century b.c. ; from the Gates 

of Shalmaneser ... ... ... ... ... . . . 263 

02-63^ The tribute of the Chaldeans ; from the Gates of Shalmaneser 204 

04. Bas-relief of Shamash-resh-usur, governor of the lands of 

Sukhi and Mari ; after a photo, by Weissbach 200 

05. The god Adad from a votive offering dedicated in E-sagila by 

Esarhaddou ; after Weissbach ... ... ... ... ... 271 

00-08. The weather-god and two goddesses from an Assyrian bas- 

relief; after Layar^l ... ... ... ... ... ... 295 

09. Figure of deity in portable shrine ; after I^ayard ... ... 290 

70. Sumerian harp, with the sound-case surmounted by the figure 

of a bull ... ... ... ... ... ...« ... 298 

71. The guardian lions of the Eastern Gate of Heaven, from the 

impression of a cylinder-seal in the Louvre ; after Heuzey ... 299 

72. Winged monster <Tn enamelled frieze att Fcrsejndis ; after 

Dieulafoy 300 




MAPS AND PLANS 


PAGE 

I. Diagram to illustrate the political centre of gravity in Baby- 
lonia (Fig. 1) 9 

II. Map of the neighbourhood of Babylon and Birs-Nimrud 

(Fig. 2) 16 

III. Plan of the ruins of Babylon (Fig. 3) 23 

iV*. Ground-plan of part of the outer city-wall (Fig. 4) 25 

Y. Plan of the Southern Citadel (Fig. 6) ... ... ... 30 

VI. Ground*plan of quay-walls and fortification-walls in the N. W. 

corner of the S. Citadel (Fig. 7) ... ... ••• ... 32 

VII. Plan of the Throne Room of Nebuchadnezzar and part of the 

private palace (Fig. 9) 42 

VIII. Plan of the N.K. corner of the palace with the Vaulted 

Building (Fig # ll) • ... "... 46 

IX. Ground-plan of the Ishtar Gate (Fig. 14) ... # 52 

X. Plan of the later defences of the Citadel upon the N., showing 

the walls with the Lion Frieze and the Ishtar Gate (Fig. 18) 57 

XI. Ground-plan of ft-makh, the temple o£ the goddess Nin- 

niakh (Fig. 20) J 64 

XII. Ground-plan of the unidentified temple known as (t Z ” 

(Fig. 23) 68 

XIII. Ground-plan of the temple of Ishtar of Akkad (Fig. 25) ... 70 

XfV. Ground-plan of the temple of Ninib (Fig. 26) * ... 71 

XV. Ground-plan of E-teme?i*anki and E-sJgila (Fig. 27) 74 

XVI. Ground-pIhn of E-zida and the teinple-towea of Nabfi at 

Borsippa (Fig. 29) 78 

XVII. Plan of the Merkes Mound, showing part of the street net- 
work of Babylon (Fig. 31) 83 

^VIII. Map of Babylonia^ Assyria and Mesopotamia. Jnset^ Map 

of Western Asia ... # ... ... ... Facing pay e 340 




A HISTORY. OF BABYLON 


CHAPTER I 

introductory: babYlon’s place in the history of 

ANTIQUITY 

T he name of Babylon suggests one of the great 
centres* from which civilization radiated to other 
peoples of the ancient world. And it is true 
that from the second millennium onwards we have 
evidence of 'the gradual spread of Babylonian culture 
throughout the greater part of Western Asia. Before 
the close of the fifteenth century, to cite* a single 
example of such influence, we find that Babylonian had 
become the language of Eastern diplomacy. It is not 
surprising perhaps th^t the Egyptian king should have 
adopted the Babylonian tongue and method 6f writing 
for his correspondence with rulers of Babylon itself or 
of Assyria. But it is remarkable that he should employ 
this foreign script and language for sending orders to 
the $?>vernors of his Syriajf and Palestinian dependencies, 
and that such Canaanite officials sliould use the same 
medium for tfie reports they despatched to their 
Egyptian master. In the same period we find the 
Aryan rulers of Mitanni, in Northern Mesopotamia, 
writing in cuneiform the language of their adopted 
country. A few decades lat$r the Hittites of Aifatolia, 
discarding their old and clumsy system of hieroglyphs 
except for •monumental purposes, borrow the same 
character for their own speech, while their treaties with 
Egypt are drawn up in Babylonian. In the ninth 
century the powerful race of the Urartians, settled in 
the mountains of ‘Armenia around the shores of Lake 
Van, adopf as their national script the writing of 

1 B 



2 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


Assyria, which in turn had been derived from Babylon. 
Elam, Babylon’s nearest foreign neighbour, at a very 
early period had, like the Hittites of a later age, 
substituted for their rude hieroglyphs the language 
and older characters of Babylon, and later on they 
evolved from the same writing a character of their own. 
Finally, coming down to the sixth century, we find the 
Acha^menian kings inventing a cuneiform sign-list to 
express the Old Persian language, in order that their 
own speech might be represented in royal proclamations 
and memorials beside those of their subject provinces of 
Babylon and Susiania. 

These illustrations of Babylonian influence on 
foreign races dre confined to one department of Culture 
only, the language and the system of writing. But 
they have a very much wider implication! For when a 
foreign language is used. and written, a certain know- 
ledge of its literature must be presupposed* And since 
all early literatures were largely religious in character, 
the study, of the language carries with it some acquain- 
tance with the legends, mythology and religious beliefs 
of the race from whom it was borrowed. Thus, even 
if we leave out of account the obvious effects of com- 
mercial intercourse, the single* group of examples 
quoted necessarily implies a strong cultural influence 
on contemporary races. 

It may thus appear a paradox to assert that the 
civilisation, with which the name of Babylon is. asso- 
ciated, was not Babylonian. *But it is a fact that for 
more than .a thousand years before tlve appearance of 
that city as a great centre of culture, the civilization it 
handed on to others had acquired in all essentials its 
later type. In artistic excellence, indeed, a standard 
had bpdn ‘already reached, whieh, so far from being 
'surpassed, was never afterwards attained in Mesopotamia. 
An$ although the Babylonian may justly be credited 
with' greater system in his legislation, witFTan extended 
literature, and perhaps also with an increased lurury of 
ritual, h'is efforts were entirely controlled 'by earlier 
models, if we except the spheres of { poetry and ethics, 
the Semite i>j Babylon, as elsewhere, proved himself a 
clever <adapten, not a creator. He was the prophet of 



INTRODUCTORY 


3 


Sumerian culture and merely perpetuated the achieve- 
ments of the race whom he displaced politically and 
absorbed. It is therefore the more remarkable that his 
particular city should have seen but little of the process 
by which that culture had been gradually evolved. 
During those eventful centuries Babylon had been but 
little more than a provincial town. Yet 'it was reserved 
for this obscure and unimportant city to absorb within 
herself the results of that long process, and to appear 
to later ages as the original source of the culture she 
enjoyed. Before tracing her political fortunes in detail 
it will be well to consider briefly the causes which 
contributed to her retention of the place.’she so suddenly 
secured for herself. 

The fact that under her West-Semitic kings 
Babylon should have taken rank as the capital city does 
not in itself account for bet permanent enjoyment of 
that position. The earlier history of the lands of 
Sumer and Akkad ’abounds with similar examples 
of the sudden rise of cities, followed, after an interval of 
power, by their equally sudden relapse into comparative 
obscurity. The political centre of gravity was con- 
tinually shitting from one town to another, and the 
problem we have to solve is why, having ebme to rest 
in Babylon, it should have remained there. To the 
Western Semites themselves, after a political existence 
of three centuries, it must have seemed that their 
, city, was about to share the fate of her nuYnerous 
predecessors. When flic Hittite* raiders captured and 
sacked Babylon and carried off her patron deities, events 
must have appeared to be taking their normal course. 
After the country, with her abounding fertility, had 
been given time to recover from her temporary de- 
pfession, she might have been expected to emefge once 
more, according to precedent, under the fegi'i of some 
other city. a Yet it was within the ancient Trails of 
Babylon tfiat the Kassite conquerors established their 
headquarters ; and it was to Babylon, long rebuilt and 
once mofe powerful, that the Pharaohs of the eighteenth 
Dynasty and the* Hittite kings of Cappadocia addressed 
their diplomatic correspondence. During Assyria’s 
long struggle with the southern kingdom Babylon was 



4 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

always the protagonist, and no raid by Aramean 01 
Chaldean tribes ever succeeded in ousting her from 
that position. At the height of Assyrian power she 
continued to be the chief check upon that empires 
expansion, and the vacillating policy of the Sargonids in 
•their treatment of the city sufficiently testifies to the 
dominant rd/e ’she continued to play in politics. And 
when Nineveh had fallen, it was Babylon that took her 
place in a great part of Western Asia. 

This continued pre-eminence of a single city is in 
striking contrast to the ephemeral authority of earlier 
capitals, and it can only be explained by some radical 
change in the general conditions of the country. ^ One 
fact stands out clearly : Babylon’s geographical position 
must have endowed her during this period with a 
strategical and commercial importance which enabled 
her to survive the rudest ‘shocks to her material pros- 
perity. A glance at the map will show that the city 
lay in the north of Babylonia, just below the confluence 
of the twd great rivers in their lower course. Built 
originally on* the left bank of the Euphrates, she was 
protected by its stream from any sudden incursion of 
the desert tribes. At the same time she was in 
immediate ‘contact with the broad expanse of alluvial 
plain to the south-east, intersected by its network of 
canals. 

But the real strength of her position lay in her 
near neighbourhood to the transcontinental routes- of. 
traffic. When approaching Baghdad from the north 
the Mesopotamian plain contracts to a \vidth of some 
thirty-five miles, and, although it has already begun 
to expand again in the latitude of Babylon, that city 
was well within touch of both rivers. She consequently 
lay at ‘the meeting-pointy of two great avenues \)f ' 
commerce The Euphrates route linked Babylonia 
with* Northern Syria and the Mediterranqpp, and was 
her natural line of contact with Egypt ; it also con- 
nected her with Cappadocia, by way of the Cflimn 
Gates through the Taurus, along the track of 'the later 
Royal Road . 1 Farther north the trunk-route through 

1 Cf . Hogarth, “The Nearer East,” pp. 212 ff., and Rhmsay, “The 
Historical Geography of Asia Minor,” pp. 27 ff. Herodotus (V, 52-54) 



INTRODUCTORY 5 

Anatolia from the west, reinforced by tributary routes 
from the Black Sea, turns at Sivas on the Upper Halys, 
and after crossing the Euphrates in the mountains, first 
strikes the Tigris at Diarbekr ; then leaving that river 
for the easier plain, it rejoins the stream in the neigh- 
bourhood of Nineveh and so advances southward to 
Susa or to Babylon. A third great route that Babylon 
controlled was that to the east through the Gates 
of Zagros, the easiest point of penetration to the 
Iranian plateau and the natural outlet of com- 
merce from Northern Elam . 1 Babylon thus lay across 
the stream of the nations’ traffic, and in the direct 
path of any invader advancing upon the southern 
plains. 

That she owed her importance to her strategic 
position, and not to any particular virtue on the part 
of her inhabitants, wifi be apparent from the later 
history of the country. It has indeed been pointed 
out that the geographical conditions render necessary 
the existence of a, great urban centre near the con- 
fluence of the Mesopotamian rivers . 2 A/id this fact is 
amply attested by the relative positions of the capital 
cities, which succeeded one another in that region after 
the supremacy had' passed from Babylon. Seleucia, 
Ctesiphon and Baghdad are all clustered in the narrow 
neck of the Mesopotamian plain, and for only one short 
period, when normal conditions were suspended, has 
tho centre of government been transferred , to any 
southern city . 3 The A>le change has consisted in the 
permanent selection of the Tigris for th.e site of each 
new capital, with a decided tendency to remove it to 


describes the “ Royal Road ” of the Persian period as passing from Ephesus 
Jjy the Cilioian Gates to Susa, and it obtained its name fr<*n the fact that all 
government business of tlfe Persian Court passed along it ; the distances, 
given by Herodotus in parasangs anfl stages, may well be derived from some 
official Persian document (of. How and Wells, “ Commentary m Herodotus,” 
II, p. 21). Rut it followed the track of a still earlier Royal RoSd, fcy which 
Khatti, the capital of the old Hittite Empire, maintained its communications 
westward and with the Euphrates valley. 

^iVt tlje present day this forms the great trunk-road across the highlands 
of Persia, by way of Kirmanshah ; and, since the Moslem conquest, it has 
been the chief overland route from the farther East for all those making the 
pilgrimage to Mecca.* 

2 Cf. HWfearth, op. cit., p. 200 f. 



G HISTORY OF BABYLON 

the left or eastern bank . 1 That the Euphrates should 
have given place in this way to her sister river was 
natural enough in view of the latter's deeper channel 
and better water way, which gained in significance as 
soon as the possibility of maritime communication was 
contemplated. 

Throughout, the whole period of Babylon’s supre- 
macy the Persian Gulf, so far from being a channel 
of international commerce, was as great a barrier as 
any mountain range. Doubtless a certain amount of 
local coasting traffic was always carried on, and the 
heavy blocks of diorite which were brought to Baby- 
lonia from Magan by the early Akkadian king Naram- 
Sin, and at a rather later period by Gudea of La^fash , 2 
must have been transported by water rather than over 
land. Tradition, too, ascribed the conquest of the 
island of Dilmun, the modern Bahrein, to Sargon of 
Akkad ; but that marked the extreme limit.of Baby- 
lonian penetration southwards, and the conquest must 
have been little more than a temporary occupation 
following a series of raids down the Arabian coast. 
The fact that two thousand years later Sargon of 
Assyria, when recording his receipt of tribute from 
Uperi of Dilmun, should have bedi so far out in his 
estimate of its distance from the Babylonian coast- 
line , 3 is an indication of the continued disuse of the 
waters of the gulf as a means of communication. On 
this supposition we may readily understand the diffi- 
culties encountered by Sennacherib when transporting 
his army across the head of the gulf against certain 
coast-towns of Elam, and the necessity, to which he 
was put, of building special ships for the purpose. 

There is evidence that in the Neo- Babylonian period 
the possibilities of transport by way of the gulf had-> 
already begun to attract attention, and .Nebuchad- 
nezzar. H *> said to have attempted to build harbours 


1 It is not improbable that the transference from one bank toH*he 
other was dictated by the relations of the ruling empire with l4rsia and 
the West. 

* See “Sumer and Akkad,” p. 242. • 

3 Cf. Delitzsch, “ Paradies,” pp. 178 ft., and Meyer, “Ge.s«iiichte dcs 
Altertums/’ L, ii., p. 478. 



INTRODUCTORY 7 

in the swamp at the mouths of the delta . 1 But his 
object must have been confined to encouraging coastal 
trade, for the sea route between the Persian Gulf and 
India was certainly not in use before the fifth century, 
and in all probability was inaugurated by Alexander. 
According to Herodotus 2 it had been opened by Darius 
after the return of the Greek Scylax of Caryanda from' 
his journey to India, undertaken as one of the surveying 
expeditions on the basis of which Darius founded the 
assessment of his new satrapies. But, although there 
is no need to doubt the historical character of that 
voyage, there is little to suggest that Scylax coasted 
round, or even entered, the Persian Gulf . 3 Moreover, 
it is *clear that, while Babylon’s international trade 
received a great impetus under the efficient organization 
of the Persian Empire, it was the overland routes which 
benefited. The outcrops of* rock, or cataracts, which 
blocked the Tigris for vessels of deeper draft, were not 
removed until Alexander levelled them ; and the problem 
of Babylon's sea- traffic, to which he devoted»the closing 
months of his life, was undoubtedly one pf the factors 
which, having now come into prominence for the first 
time, influenced Seleueus in selecting a site on the 
Tigris for his new capital . 4 • t 

But that was not the only cause of Babylon’s 
deposition. For after her capture by Cyrus, new forces 
came into play which favoured a transference of the 
capital eastward. During the earlier periods, of her 
history Babylon’s chiefVival and most persistent enemy 
had lain upon her eastern frontier. T° tbe early 
Sumerian rulers of city-states Elam had been “ the 
mountain that strikes terror ,” 6 and during subsequent 
periods the cities of Sumer and Akkad could never be 
sure of immunity from invasion in that quarter. We 
shall see that in Elam the estern Semites of Babylon 
found the chief obstacle to the southward exttunsjpn of 
their authority, and that in later periods any symptom 

below. Chap. IX., p. 280. 

* IV-., 44. 

3 Cp. Myre^, (i Geographical Journal,” VII I. (1896), p. 623, and How 
and Wells, “ Gommoiitary on Herodotus,” Vol. I., p. 320. 

4 See Bevan, “House of Seleueus,” 1., pp. 242 ff., 253. 

b Cf. “Sum. and Alik.,” p. 149. • 



8 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 

of internal weakness or dissension was the signal for 
renewed attack. It is true that the Assyrian danger 
drew these ancient foes together for a time, but even 
the sack of Susa by Ashur-bani-pal did not put an end 
to their commercial rivalry. 

During all this period there was small temptation 
to transfer the capital to any point within easier striking 
distance of so powerful a neighbour ; and with the 
principal passes for eastward traffic under foreign con- 
trol, it was natural that the Euphrates route to N orthern 
Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean coast should 
continue to be the chief outlet for Babylonian commerce. 
But on the incorporation of the country within the 
Persian empire all danger of interference with her 
eastern trade was removed ; and it is a testimony to the 
part Babylon had already played in history that she 
continued to be the capital city of Asia for more than 
two centuries. Cyrus, like Alexander, entered the city 
as a conqueror, but each was welcomed by the people 
and their priests as the restorer of ancient rights and 
privileges, policy would thus have been against any 
attempt to introduce radical innovations. The prestige 
the city enjoyed and the grandeur of its temples and 
palaces doubtless* also weighed with the Achaimenian 
kings in their choice of Babylon for their official 
residence, except during the summer months. Then 
they withdrew to the cooler climate of Persepolis 
or Echatana, and during the early spring, too, they 
might transfer the court to Sus’a ; but they continued 
to recognize Babylon as their true capital.* In fact, the 
city only lost its importance when the centre of govern- 
ment was removed to Seleueia in its own immediate 
neighbourhood. Then, at first possibly under compul- 
sion, and afterwards of their own freewill, the commercial 
classes followed their rulers' to the west bank of the 
Tigris: ; <a*hd Babylon suffered in proportion. In the 
swift rise of Seleueia in response to official orders, we 
may see clear proof that the older city’s influence 'had 
been founded upon natural conditions, which were 
shared in an equal, and now in even a greater degree, by 
the site of the new capital. 

The * secret of Babylon’s greatness is further 



INTRODUCTORY 


9 


illustrated by still later events in the valley of the 
Euphrates and the Tigris. The rise of Ctesiphon on 
the left bank of the river was a further result of the 
eastward trend of commerce. But it lay immediately 
opposite Seleucia, and marked no fresh shifting of 
the centre of gravity. Of little importance under 
the Seleucid rulers, it became the chief city of the 
Arsacida;, and, after the Parthian Empire had been 



DIAGRAM TO TLLT7RTRATE THE POLITICAL, CENTRE OF GRAVITY IN BABYLONIA. 

The circle marks the limits within which the capital shifted from the period 
of the First Dynasty onwards. It was only under the abnormal conditions pro- 
duced by tho Moslem conquest that Ktifa and Basra became for five generations 
the twin capitals of ‘Ir&k ; this interval presents a parallel to the earlier period 
before the rise of Babylon. • 

9 • 

conquered -by Ardashir T., it continued to be the 
principal city of the province and became tfee avinter 
residence of the Sassanian kings. When in 036 a.d. 
thp> Moslem invaders defeated the Persians near the 
ruins df Babylon and in the following year captured 
Ctesiphon, they found that city and Seleucia, to which 
they ga^ve the joint name of Al-Madain, or “ the cities, 
still retaining the importance their site had acquired in 




10 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

the third century b.c. Then follows a period of a 
hundred and twenty-five years which is peculiarly in- 
structive for comparison with the earlier epochs of 
Babylonian history. 

The last of the great Semitic migrations from 
Arabia had resulted in the conquests of Islam, when, 
after the death of Mohammed, the Arab armies 
poured into Western Asia in their efforts to convert 
the world to their faith. The course of the movement, 
and its effect upon established civilizations which were 
overthrown; may be traced in the full light of history ; 
and we find in the valley of the Tigris and Euphrates 
a resultant economic condition which forms a close 
parallel to that of the age before the rise of Babylon. 
The military occupation of Mesopotamia by r the Arabs 
closed for a time the great avenues of transcontinental 
commerce ; and, as a result, ‘the political control of the 
country ceased to be exercised from the capital of the 
Sassanian kings and was distributed over more than 
one area. New towns sprang into , being around the 
permanent camps of the Arab armies. Following on 
the conquest of Mesopotamia, the city of Basra was 
built on the Shatt el-‘Arab in the extreme south of the 
country, while in the same year, O.'IH a.d., Kiifa was 
founded more to the north-west 0,11 the desert side of 
the Euphrates. A third great town, Wasit, was added 
sixty-five years later, and this arose in the centre of the 
country on both banks of the Tigris, whose waters 
were then passing along the present bed of the Shatt el- 
Hai. It is true that Madain retained a measure of 
local importance, but during the Omayyad Caliphate 
Kufa and Basra were the twin capitals of ‘Irak. 1 

Thus the slackening of international connections led 
at once to a distribution of authority between a north 
and a south Babylonian site" It is true* that both 
capitals \tft*re under the same political control, but from 
the economic standpoint we are forcibly reminded of 
the era of city-states in Sumer and Akkad. Then, top, 
there was no external factor to retain the cerftre of 

1 As such the two cities were known as ‘Al-‘Mk&n, or Al-'Irakayn, 
meaning “ the two capitals of ‘Irak *' ; cf. (i. Le Strange, “The halide of the 
Eastern Calipliate/’ p. 25. 



INTRODUCTORY 11 

gravity in the north ; and Erech more than once secured 
the hegemony, while the most stable of the shifting 
dynasties was the latest of the southern city of Ur. 
The rise of Babylon as the sole and permanent capital 
of Sumer and Akkad may be traced, as we shall note, 
to increased relations with Northern Syria, which 
followed the establishment of her dynasty of West- 
Semitic kings . 1 And again we may see history 
repeating herself, when Moslem authority is removed 
to Baghdad at the close of the first phase in the Arab 
occupation of Mesopotamia. For on the fall of the 
Omayyad dynasty and the transference of the Abbasid 
capital from Damascus to the east, cQmmercial inter- 
course with Syria and the west was restored to its old 
footing. Basra and Kufa at once failed to respond to 
the changed conditions, and a new administrative 
centre was required. It is' significant that Baghdad 
should have been built a few miles above Ctesiphon, 
within the small circle of the older capitals ; 2 and that, 
with the exception ef a single short period , 3 she should 
have remained the capital city of ‘Irak Thus the 
history of Mesopotamia under the Caliphate is in- 
structive for the study of the closely parallel conditions 
which enabled Babylon at a far earlier period to secure 
the hegemony in Babylonia and afterwards to retain it. 

From this brief survey of events it will have been 
noted that Babylon’s supremacy falls in the middle 
period of her countrY’s history, during which she 
distributed a civilization in the origin of which she 
played no part. When she passed, the culture she had 
handed on passed with her, though on Mesopotamian 
soil its decay was gradual. But she had already 
delivered her message, and it has left its mark on the 

1 See further, Tdiap IV. 'Hie fact that from time to time other cities of 
Akkad had seen red the leadership, suggests that the forces whi$#evejatually 
placed Babylofl at the head of the country were already beginning to be felt. 
They were doubtless checked in no small degree by the absence of an internal 
administration of any lasting stability during the acute racial conflict which 
characterized the period. 

2 The city was founded bv the second Abbasid Caliph in 7(>2 a.d. 

5 For a period of fifty-six years (H.W-892 a.d.) the Caliphate was removed 
to S/hnarra. The circumstances which led to the transference may be traced 
directly to tlie civil war which broke out on the death of Harun-ar-Rashid ; 
cf. Le Strange, op. cl/., p. 82. 



12 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

remains of other races of antiquity which have come 
down to us. We shall see that it was in three main 
periods that her influence made itself felt in any marked 
degree beyond the limits of the home-land. The earliest 
of these periods of external contact was that of her 
First Dynasty of West-Semitic rulers, though the most 
striking evidence of its effect is only forthcoming after 
some, centuries had passed. In the second period the 
process was indirect, her culture being carried north and 
west by the expansion of Assyria. The last of the three 
epochs coincides with the rule of the Neo-Babylonian 
kings, when, thanks to her natural resources, the 
country not only regained her independence, but r for a 
short time established an empire which far eclipsed her 
earlier effort. And in spite of her speedy return, under 
Persian rule, to the position of a subject province, her 
foreign influence may be regarded as operative, it is true 
in diminishing intensity, well into the Hellenic period. 

The concluding chapter will deal in some detail 
with certain features of Babylonian civilization, and with 
the extent to which it may have moulded the cultural 
development of other races. In the latter connexion 
a series of claims has been put forward which cannot be 
ignored in afiny treatment of the nation’s history. Some 
of the most interesting contributions that have recently 
been made to Assyriological study undoubtedly concern 
the influence of ideas, which earlier research had already 
shown to be of Babylonian origin. Within recent years 
a school has arisen in Germany which emphasizes the 
part played by Babylon in the religious development 
of W estern Asia, and, in a minor degree, of Europe. 
The evidence on which reliance has been plaeed to 
prove the spread of Babylonian thought throughout the 
ancient world has been furbished ihainly by Israel and 
Greece ; and it is claimed that many features both in 
Hebfewr religion and in Greek mythology can only be 
rightly studied in the light thrown upon them by 
Babylonian parallels from which they were ultimately 
derived. It will therefore be necessary to examine 
briefly the theory which underlies most recent specula- 
tion on this subject, and to ascertain, if possible, how far 
it may be relied on to furnish results of permanent value. 



INTRODUCTORY 


13 


But it will be obvious that, if the theory is to 
be accepted in whole or in part, it must be shown to 
rest upon a firm historical basis, and that any inquiry 
into its credibility should be more fitly postponed until 
the history of the nation itself has been passed in review. 
After the evidence of actual contact with other races 
has been established in detail, it will be possible to form 
a more confident judgment upon questions which 
depend for their solution solely on a balancing of 
probabilities. The estimate of Babylon’s foreign 
influence has therefore been postponed to the closing 
chapter of the volume. But before considering the 
historical sequence of her dynasties, and the periods to 
whidh they may be assigned, it will be well to inquire 
what recent excavation has to tell us of the actual 
remains of fhe city which became the permanent capital 
of Babylonia. 



CHAPTER II 


THE CITY OF BABYLON AND ITS REMAINS: A DISCUSSION 
OF THE RECENT EXCAVATIONS 

T HE actual site of Babylon was never lost in 
popular tradition. In spite of the total 
disappearance of the city, which followed its 
gradual decay imder Seleucid and Parthian ruld, its 
ancient fame sufficed to keep it in continual remem- 
brance. The old Semitic name Bilb-ili, “the Gate 
of the Gods,” lingered on about the site, and under the 
form Babil is still the local designation for the most 
northerly of the city-mounds. Tradition, too, never 
ceased to connect the exposed brickwork of Nebuchad- 
nezzar’s main citadel and palace with his name. Kasr, 
the Arab nainb for the chief palace-mound and citadel 
of Babylon, means “ palace ” or “ castle,” and when 
in the twelfth cqntury Benjamin- of Tudela visited 
Baghdad, the Jews of that city told him that in the 
neighbouring ruins, near Hilla. ‘the traveller might 
still behold Nebuchadnezzar’s palace beside the fiery 
furnace into which Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah had 
been thrown. It does not seen* that this adventurous 
rabbi actually visited the site,' though it is unlikely 
that he was 'deterred by fear of the serpents and 
scorpions with which, his informants said, the ruins 
were infested. 

In the sixteenth century an English merchant 
traveller, John Eldred, madet three voyages, to “New 
Babylon, ’^>s he calls Baghdad, journeying from Aleppo 
down the Euphrates. On the last occasioh, after 
describing his landing at Faluja, and how he secured a 

1 Rogers points out that the rabbi’s account of Babylon seems to 1 lack the 
little touches which betray the record of an eye-witness, and he compares it with 
the same traveller’s descriptions of Mosul and Baghdad. By far the best and 
fullest account of the early explorers of Babylonia is that given by Rogers 
in his History of Babylonia and Assyria,” Vol. I., pp. 84 If* 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 15 

hundred rsscs for IhcIc of cjirxicl s to ciirry his good s to 
Baghdad, he tells us that “in this place which we 
crossed over stood the olde mightie c-itie of Babylon, 
many olde mines whereof are easilie to be seene by 
daylight, which I, John Eldred, have often behelde at 
my goode leisure having made three voyages between 
the New Citie of Babylon and Aleppo over this 
desert .” 1 But it would seem probable from his further 
description that “the olde tower of Babell,” which he 
visited “ sundry times,” was really the ruin of ‘Akarkuf, 
which he would have passed on his way to Baghdad. 
Benjamin of Tudcla, on the other hand, had taken 
Birs-Nimrud for the Tower of Babel , 2 and had noted 
how- the ruins of the streets of Babylon still extend 
for thirty miles. In fact, it was natural that several 
of the earty travellers should have regarded the whole 
complex of ruins, which they saw still standing 
along their road to Baghdad, as parts of the ancient 
city ; and it is not surprising that some of the earlier 
excavators should have fallen under a similar illusion so 
far as the area between Babil and Kl-Birs is concerned . 3 
The famous description of Herodotus, and the 
accounts other classical writers have left us of the city’s 
size, tended to foster this conviction ; and, although 
the centre of Babylon was identified correctly enough, 
the size of the city's area was greatly exaggerated. 
Babylon had cast her spell upon mankind, and it has 
taken sixteen years of patient and continuous excavation 
to undermine that stubborn belief. But in the process 
of shrinkage, and as accurate knowledge has gradually 
given place to conjecture, the old spell has reappeared 
unchanged. It may be worth while to examine in 

1 See Hakluyt, “The Prinripall navigations voiages anH discoveries of the 
'English nation/’ ed. 158*./, p. 20U ; ed. (ioldsmid, Vol. X., “ Asia,” Pt. ill. 

(1880), p. (53. • # 

2 lie states that “ the heavenly fire which struck the tow^ split it to its 
very foundation,” a description which is thoroughly applicable to ^the present 
appearance of Borsippa’s temple-tower at Kl-Birs ; see the photograph 
reproduced on Plate II. Other travellers, such as Anthony Shirley in 1699 or 
1000, appear to have made the same identification. A few years later Pietro 
della Valle was nearer the mark in identifying the tower with the mound 
Babil, from which he carried away to Borne some of Nebuchadnezzar s 
stamped bricks, probably the first collection of Babylonian antiquities to 
reach Europe (cf. Rogers, op. cit., p. 98). 

3 See ]>. 10, Eig. 2. 



16 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 

some detail the results of recent work upon the site, 
and note to what extent the city’s remains have 
thrown light upon its history while leaving some 
problems still unsolved. 



'//M Desert 

, Pm. 9. 

MAP OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OF BABYLON AND RIRS-NIMRftD. 

A: Tlfe mound BAbil. B: The mound J£asr. C: The mound v ‘AmHln-ibn- 
'Ali. D: The mound Merkes. E : Inner City-wall of Babylon. F: Outer Oity- 
wall of Babylon. G : Ruins of western walls. H : Temple-tower of E-zida, 
K : Ruins of E-zida. L : Marsh. M : Hindlya Canal. 

[After the India Office Map.] * 

In view of the revolution in our knowledge of 
Babylonian topography, which has been one of the 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 17 

most striking results of recent work, no practical 
purpose would be served by tracing out the earlier 
but very partial examinations of the site which were 
undertaken successively by Rich in 181 1, 1 by Layard 
in 1850, 2 3 by Oppert as the head of a French expedition 
in the years 1852-54, 3 and by Hormuzd Rassam, 
between 1878 and 1889, when * he was. employed on 
excavations for the British Museum. 4 During the 
last of these periods the British Museum obtained a 
valuable series of tablets from Babylon, some of the 
texts proving of great literary and scientific interest. 
In 1887, and again after a lapse of ten years. Dr. Robert 
Koldewey visited the site of Babylon and picked up 
fragments of enamelled bricks on the bast side of the 
Kasr. On the latter occasion he sent some of them to 
Berlin, and Dr. Richard Schone, at that time Director 
of the Royal Museums, recognized their artistic and 
archasological interest. Thus it was with the hope of 
making speedy and ‘startling discoveries that the 
German Oriental Society began work upon the site at 
the end of March in the year 1 899 ; and it is the more 

1 In addition to his incomplete plan (ef. C. .1. Rich, “ Narrative of a Journey 
to the site of Babylon in J SI by his widow, J^ondon , 1839 ; opposite 

p. 43), and the smaller-sc ale plan of Major Rennet based upofi it (published 
originally in “ Arclueologia,” Y r ol. 18, and reprinted with Rich’s memoir), 
we possess another sketch-plan, more accurate in certain details, by Sir 
Robert Her Porter (cf. “Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient 
Babylonia, etc., during the years 1817.1818, 1819, and 1820,” Vol II . , 1822, 
opposite p. 849). Accurate surveys of large districts in Babylonia wgre made 
by Captain J. Felix Jones of theiludian Navy, v^io did such excellent work 
oil Nineveh and its neighbourhood (see his “ Memoirs,” issued as a volume in 
‘‘Bombay Government Records,” No. XLI1I., New Series. Bombay, 1857; 
and for the Nineveh survey, cf. “ Journ. Roy. Asiat. Soe., V ol. XV., 1853, 
pp. 352 ff.). The material collected by Felix Jones in Babylonia, was 
incorporated in the India Office Map, which was compiled by Trelawney 
Saunders on the basis of the surveys made between 1880 and 1885 by 
Commander W. Beaumont Selby, Lieut. W. Collingwood* and Lieut. J. 

* B.*Bewsher, all of the Indi.-fli Navy. This was issued in 1SS5 under the 
title “ Surveys of Ancient Babylon amfthe surrounding ruins with part of the 
rivers Tigris and Euphrates, the Hindiyeh ('anal, the Sea of and the 
Shat Atsliar,” ^te., London, 1885. Jt. takes in the area from Bagffdad^o the 
junction of the Shatt Atshar with the Euphrates and is by far the best map, 
and the only one on a large scale, hitherto produced of Babylon and its 
neighbourhood. All plans of the mounds covering the ruins of the city itself 
are of cours£ superseded by those issued by the German expedition. 

2 See “Nineveh ami Babylon,” London, 18:>3. 

3 The results of the expedition were published in two volumes under the 
title “ Expedition scientific ue en Mesopotamie, Par is, 1883. 

Cf. “ Asshurand the Laud of Nimrod,” New*^fk, 1897. 


C 



18 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

to the credit of the excavators that they have not 
allowed any difficulties or disappointments to curtail 
and bring to a premature close the steady progress of 
their research. 

The extent of ground covered by the remains of the 
ancient city, and the great accumulation of debris over 
some of the principal buildings.- rendered the work more 
arduous than was anticipated, and consequently the 
publication of results has been delayed. It is true that, 
from the very beginning of operations, the expert has 
been kept informed of the general progress of the 
digging by means of letters and reports distributed to 
its subscribers every few months by the society. 1 But 
it was only in 1'911, after twelve years of unintert*upted 
digging, that the first instalment was issued of the 
scientific publication. This was confined to the 
temples of the city, and for the first time placed the 
study of Babylonian religious architecture upon a 
scientific basis. 2 In the following year Dr. Koldewey, 
the direetbr of the excavations, s implemented his first 
volume with a second, in which, under pressure from 
the society, ’he forestalled to some extent the future 
issues of the detailed account by summarizing the 
results obtained to date upon* alt sections of the site. 3 
It has thus been rendered possible to form a connected 
idea of the remains of the ancient city, so far as they 
have been recovered. 

In. their work at Babylon the excavators have, ..of 
course, employed ‘modern /nethods, which differ 
considerably, from those of the age when Layard and 
Botta brought the winged bulls of Assyria to the* 
British Museum and to the Louvre. The extraordinary 
success whjch attended those earlier excavators has, 
indeed, never been surpassed. But it is now realized * 
that only by minuteness ‘of search and by careful 
classcfiwrtion of strata can the remains of the past be 
made to reveal in full their secrets. The fine museum 

1 " Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berliq,” Nos. 1-54 
(March, 1899-June, 1914). 

2 See Koldewey, “ Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa,” Leipzig, 1911. 

3 CL “Das wieder erstehenae Babylon, Leipzig, 1912. A careful English 
translation of the work, from the pen of Mrs. Johns, has been issued under 
the title “The Excavations at Babylon,” London, 1914. 





T&E CITY AND ITS REMAINS 19 

specimen retains its importance ; but it gains immensely 
in significance when it ceases to be an isolated product 
and takes its place in a detailed history of its period. 

In order to grasp the character of the new evidence, 
and the methods by which it has been obtained at 
Babylon, it is advisable to bear in mind some of the 
general characteristics tof Babylonian architecture and 
the manner in which the art of building was influenced 
by the natural conditions of the country. One 
important point to realize is that the builders of all 
periods were on the defensive, and not solely against 
human foes, for in that aspect they resembled other 
builders of antiquity. The foe they most dreaded was 
flood* Security against flood conditioned the architect’s 
ideal : he aimed solely at height and mass. When a 
king built a palace for himself or a temple for his god, 
he did not consciously aim at making it graceful or 
beautiful. What he # always boasts of having done is 
that he has made it “ like a mountain.” delighted 
to raise the level of his artificial mound or building- 
platform, and the modern excavator owes, much to this 
continual filling in of the remains of earlier structures. 
The material at his dj^ppsal was also not without its 
influence in the production of buildings “ like 
mountains,” designed to escape the floods of the plain. 

The alluvial origin of the Babylonian soil deprived 
the inhabitants of an important factor in the develop- 
ment of the builder’s , art : it produced for them no 
stone. But it supplied a very effective building-material 
in its place, a strongly adhesive clay. Throughout their 
whole history the Babylonian architects built in crude 
and in kiln-burnt brick. In the Neo- Babylonian period 
we find them making interesting technicaUexperiments 
in this material, here a fir^jt attempt to roof in a wide 
area with vsfulting, elsewhere counteracting the effects 
of settlement by a sort of expansion-joint. \ V e ' shall 
see, too, that it was in this same medium that they 
attained to real beauty of design. 

Brick continued to be the main building-material in 
Assyria too, for that country derived its culture from 
the lower Euphrates valley . 1 But in the north soft 

1 Recent discoveries at Shergat prove that a Sumerian occupation of the 



20 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

limestone quarries were accessible. So in Assyria they 
lined their mud-brick walls with slabs of limestone, 
carved in low relief and brightly coloured ; and they set 
up huge stone colossi to flank their palace entrances. 
This use of stone, both as a wall-lining and in wall- 
foundations, constitutes the main difference between 
Babylonian and Assyrian architectural design. In- 
cidentally it explains how the earlier excavators were so 
much more successful in Assyria than in Babylonia ; 
for in both countries they drove their tunnels and 
trenches into most of the larger mounds. They could 
tunnel with perfect certainty when they had these stone 
linings of the walls to guide them. But to follow out 
the ground-plan of a building constructed only of 
unburnt brick, with mud or clay for mortar, necessi- 
tates a slower and more systematic process of examina- 
tion. For unburnt brick becomes welded into a solid 
mass, scarcely to be distinguished JTrom the surrounding 
soil, and tig? lines of a building in this material can only 
be recovered by complete excavation. 

An idea of the labour this sometimes entails may be 
gained from the work which preceded the identification 
of E-sagila, the great temple o£Afarduk, the city-god of 
Babylon. The temple lies at a depth of no less than 
twenty -one metres below the upper level of the hill of 
debris ; and portions of two of its massive mud-brick 
walls, together with the neighbouring pavements, were 
uncovered by bodily removing j he great depth of soil 
truck by truck. But here even German patience and 
thoroughness* have been beaten, and tunnelling was 

site of Ashur preceded the first settlement of the Semitic Assyrians. In a 
stratum below the first ishtar-temple (the earliest Assyrian temple yet 
recovered, dating as it does from the close of the third millennium 
several examples of Sumerian sculpture were found which hear an unmistak- 
ably close relationship to the earliest Sumerian work at 'folio and Hism&ya. 
The racial type represented by the sculptures is also that ‘of the south, and 
suggests a Sumerian occupation of Assyria before the advent of the Semites. 
The termination of their settlement at Ashur was probably nfit the work of 
the Semitic conquerors of Assyria, hut of another non-Semitic rare akin to 
the Mitannian people of Northern Mesopotamia (on this subject see further 
Chap. IV., pp. 137 ff.). Hut the Semites were at least indirect heirs of the 
Sumerian inhabitants and derived their culture in part from them ; and the 
growth of such elements in their acquired civilization would have been 
fostered as intercourse with the south increased. For a summary account 
of the new discoveries at Ashur, see the (i Mitteilungcn der Deutschen Orient* 
Gesellschaft/’ No. 64 (June, 1014). 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 21 

eventually adopted to establish the outer limits of the 
ground-plan, much of the interior of which still remains 
unexplored . 1 2 

The Babylon which has now been partially cleared, 
though in its central portion it reaches back to the 
First Dynasty and to the period of Hammurabi, is 
mainly that of the N eo* Babylonian empire, when Nebu- 
chadnezzar II., and Nabonidus, the last native. Baby- 
lonian king, raised their capital to a condition of magni- 
ficence it had not known before. This city survived, 
with but little change, during the domination of the 
Aehaimenian kings of Persia, and from the time of 
Herodotus onward Babylon was made.famous through- 
out the ancient world. At that time Ashur and 
Nineveh, the great capitals of Assyria, had ceased to 
exist ; but Babylon was still in her glory, and descrip- 
tions of the city have come down to us in the works of 
classical writers. Tp fit this literary tradition to the 
actual remains of the city has furnished % number of 
fascinating problems. How, for example, are we to 
explain the puzzling discrepancy between the present 
position of the outer walls and the enormous estimate 
of the city's area give* by Herodotus, or even that of 
Ctesias ? For Herodotus himself appeifrs to have 
visited Babylon ; and Ctesias was the physician of 
Artaxerxes II. Mnemon, who has left a memorial of 
his presence in a marble building on the Kasr. 

* ‘Herodotus reckons that tl^e walls of "Babylon 
extended for four hundred and eighty stades, the area 
they enclosed forming an exact square, a hundred and 
twenty stades in length each way. 1 In other words, he 
would have us picture a city more than fifty-three miles 
in circumference. The estimate of Ctesias is not so 
•large, his side of sixty-fivers tades giving a circumference 
of rather oVer forty miles . 3 Such figures, it has been 
suggested, are not in themselves impossible, Kolaewey, 
for example, comparing the Great Wall of China 

which extends for more than fifteen hundred miles, 

• 

1 See farther, p. 72 f. 

2 ] 178 . 

3 For references to other estimates, see How and h ells, ‘ c Commentary oil 
Herodotus,” sub 1 . , 178. 



22 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

and is thus about twenty-nine times as long as Hero- 
dotus’s estimate for the wall of Babylon . 1 But the 
latter was not simply a frontier-fortification. It was 
the enclosing wall of a city, and a more apposite 
comparison is that of the walls of Nanking, the largest 
city-site in China, and the work of an empire even 
greater than Babylon . 2 The latter measure less than 
twenty-four miles in circuit, and the comparison does 
not- encourage an acceptance of Herodotus’s figures on 
grounds of general probability. It is true that Oppert 
accepted them, but he only found this possible by 
stretching his plan of the city to include the whole area 
from Babil to Bh's-Nimnid , 3 and by seeing traces of 
the city and its walls in every sort of intervening mound 
of whatever period. 

As a matter of fact part of the great wall, which 
surrounded the city from the Neo- Babylonian period 
onward, has survived to the present day, and may still 
be recognized in a low ridge of earth, or series of con- 
secutive mounds/ which cross the plain for a considerable 
distance to the south-east of Babil. The traveller 
from Baghdad, after crossing the present Nil Canal by 
a bridge/ passes through a gap. iq.the north-eastern wall 
before he sees on his right the isolated mound of Babil 
with the extensive complex of the Kasr and its neigh- 
bour, Tell ‘Amran-ibn-‘Ali, stretching away in front 
and to his left/ The whole length of the city-wall, 
along the north-east side, may .still be traced by the 
position of these low earthen mounds, and they prove 
that the city on this side measured not quite two and 
three-quarter miles in extent. The eastern angle of the 
wall is also preserved, and the south-east wall may be 
followed for another mile and a quarter as it doubles 
back towards the Euphrates. r These two walls, together 
with the Euphrates, enclose the only portion of the 
ancierft city on which ruins of any importance still 
exist. But, according to Herodotus and other writers, 

1 ( f. “ Das wilder erstehendc Babylon,” p. .0. t 

1 Of. Ilaverfield, “ Ancient Town -Planning - ,” j>. 22. 

9 See above, p. lfi, Fig. 2. 

4 See the general plan of Babylon on p. 2.‘3, Fig. 3 B 
6 Fig. T. ’ 

6 A. D. and E. on plan. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 23 

the city was enclosed by two similar walls upon the 
western bank, in which case the site it occupied must 
have formed a rough quadrangle, divided diagonally by 



A: The mou»d Bfi-bil. B: Outer ^City-wall. C: Inner City-wall. D: The 
Kasr mound. E: The mound ‘Amr&n-ibn-‘Ali. F: E-makh, temple of the 
goddess Nimpakh. G : Temple of Ishtarof Akkad. H : E-temon-anki, tne Tower 
of Babylon. 1 : Ancient bed of tho Euphrates. J : The mound Merkos. K : E- 
sagila, the temple of Marduk. L : The mound Ishin-aswad. M : Unidentified 
temple known as “ Z.” N : E-patutila, the temple of Ninib. P : Greek theatre. 
Q: Sakhn* the small plain covering the precincts of the Tower of Babylon. 
R : The mound Homera. S : Nil Canal. T : Bridge over Nil Canal. U : Former 
bed of Nil Canal. Y : Old Canal. W : Euphrates. X : Track from Baghdad to 
Hilla. Z : Mounds covering the ruins of walls. 1 : Village of Anana. 2 : Village 
of Kweiresh. 3 : Villago of Jumjumma. 4 : Village of Sinjar. 

[After Koldewey and Andrao.] 



24 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 

the river. Vo certain trace has yet been recovered of 
the western walls , 1 and all remains of buildings seem to 
have disappeared completely on that side of the river. 
But for the moment it may be assumed that the city 
did occupy approximately an equal amount of space 
upon the western bank ; and, even so, its complete 
circuit would not have extended for more than about 
eleven miles, a figure very far short of any of those 
given by Herodotus, Ctesias and other writers. 

Dr. Koldewey suggests that, as the estimate of 
Ctesias approximates to four times the correct measure- 
ment, we may suspect that he mistook the figure which 
applies to the whole circumference for the measure of 
one side only of the square. But even if we accept that 
solution, it leaves the still larger figure of Herodotus 
unexplained. It is preferable to regard all such esti- 
mates of size, not as based on accurate measurements, 
but merely as representing an i oppression of grandeur 
produced qn the mind of their recorder, whether by a 
visit to the city itself, or by reports '■of its magnificence 
at second-hand. 

The excavators have not as yet devoted much 
attention to the city-wall, and, until more extensive 
digging has«-been carried out, it will not be possible to 
form a very detailed idea of the system of fortification. 
But enough has already been done to prove that the 
outer wall was a very massive structure, and consisted 
of two separate walls with the intermediate space filled 
in with rubble. The outer wall, or face, which bore the 

1 Some traces of walls still remain near the villiage of Sin jar (see Fig. 3, 4), 
and Weissbach has attempted to use them for a reconstruction of the city 
plan. As a result he makes the western portion of the city considerably 
smaller than tl^t on the eastern hank, his north-west wall meeting the 
Euphrates opposite the Kasr,and being continued ( by the elaborate fortification- 
walls to the north of the Southern Citadel ; cf. “ Das Stadtbild von Babylon/' 
in “ Der alte Orient,” V., Heft 4. This represents quite a possible arrangement 
We shall see that these remains of western walls may possibly date from a 
still earlier period, and may also have defended the western extension of the 
earlier city-area (see below, p. 35). But even so they may have remained 
the only fortifications on the western bank ; for the tendency to expansion 
would have been more marked to the east where the main citadel offered 
increased possibilities of defence. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar's northern 
citadel should also have been built on the left hank points in the same direc- 
tion. But the question can only he settled definitely when the traces of these 
western walls have been examined by excavation and their relationship to the 
eastern fortifications determined. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 25 

brunt of any attack and rose high above the moat 
encircling the city, was of burnt brick set in bitumen. 
It measured more than seven metres in thickness, and 
below ground-level was further protected from the 
waters of the moat by an additional wall, more than 
three metres in thickness, and, like it, constructed 
of burnt brick with bitumen as mortar, behind the 
outer wall, at a distance of some twelve metres from it, was 
a second wall of nearly the same thickness. This faced 
nward towards the city, and so was constructed of 


A ■■■— — 



GltOF N D-PLAN OF PART OF THE OUTER CITY-WALL. 

A: Outer nioat-iming of burnt-brick. B: Moat. 0: Inner moat-lining of 
burnt-brick. D : Outer wall of burnt-brick. E : Bubble-filling. F . Inner wall 
of crude brick, with towers built at intervals across it. The figures on tko plan 
gi$e measurements in metres. # • 

[After Koldewey and Anflrao.] 


crude or unburnt brick, as it would not be liable to 
direct assault by a besieger ; and the mortar employed 
was clay . 1 The crude-brick wall cannot be dated 
accurately, but it is certainly older than the reign of 
Nebuchadnezzar, and in h’is father’s time it probably 

• 

1 The line of mounds now marking in places the position of the city-wall 
is formed, oddly enough, by the core of the mud-brick portion, which still stands 
above the level of the surrounding soil. The far stronger outer wall has com- 
pletely disappeared, for its fine burnt-bricks have tempted plunderers in search 
of building material. It is only after excavation that the lower courses of its 
foundation arc detected when still in place, it is possible that deep excava- 
tion may settle the position of the whole line of walls, even where no trace 
of them now remains upon the surface. 


26 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

formed the outer city’s sole protection . 1 The burnt- 
brick wall and the moat-lining in front of it date, in 
their present form, from the age of Nebuchadnezzar, for 
they are built of his square bricks, impressed with his 
usual stamp, which are so common over the whole site 
of Babylon. 

At intervals along the crude-brick wall were towers 
projecting slightly beyond each face . 2 Only the bases 
of. the towers have been preserved, so that any restora- 
tion of their upper structure must rest on pure con- 
jecture. But, as rubble still fills the space between the 
two walls of burnt and unburnt brick, it may be 
presumed that the filling was continued up to the crown 
of the outer wall. It is possible that the inner wall of 
crude brick was raised to a greater height' and formed 
a curtain between each pair of towers. But even so, 
the clear space in front, consisting of the rubble filling 
and the burnt-brick wall, formed a broad roadway 
nearly twenty metres in breadth, which extended right 
round the city along the top of the wall. On this point 
the excavations have fully substantiated the account 
given by Herodotus, who states that “ on the top, 
along the edges of the wall, they constructed buildings 
of a single ohaniber facing one another, leaving between 
them room for a four-horse chariot to turn .” 3 Even if 
smaller towers were built upon the outer edge, there 
would have been fully enough space to drive a team of 
four horses abreast along the wpll, and in the intervals 
between the towers* two such chariots might easily 
have passed each other. It has been acutely noted that 
this design of the wall was not only of protection by 
reason of its size, but was also of great strategic value ; 
for it enable^ the defence to move its forces with great 
speed from one point to another, wherever the attack 
at the moment might be pressed . 4 

1 Tilts lias been deduced from the fact that a ditch, or nroat, once ran 
immediately in front of it, of which traces only have been found. The old 
ditch was filled in when Nebuchadnezzar's burnt-brick wall broadened and 
strengthened the whole line ot fortification. 

- It has been reckoned that there were not less than ninety towers along 
the north-east wall of the city, though only fifteen of these have as» yet been 
completely excavated. 

3 1., 179. 

4 Cf. Koldewey, “ Babylon,” p. 2. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 27 

In fact it is only in the matter of size and extent 
that the description given by Herodotus of the walls of 
Babylon is to be discounted; and those are just the 
sort of details that an ancient traveller would accept 
without question from his local guide. His total 
number for the city-gates is also no doubt excessive , 1 but 
his description of the wall itself as built of burnt-brick 
tallies exactly with the construction of its outer face, 
which would have been the only portion visible to 
any one passing outside the city. Moreover, in one 
portion of the wall, as reconstructed by Nebuchadnezzar, 
its inner as well as its outer half appears to have been 
formed of burnt-brick. This is the small rectangular 
extension, which Nebuchadnezzar threw’ out to protect 
his later citadel now covered by the mound known as 
Bfibil.* 

The mound of Babil represents Nebuchadnezzar’s 
latest addition to the city’s system of fortification, and 
its construction in advance of the old line of the outer 
walls was dictated ,by the desire, of whiefi we find 
increasing evidence throughout his reign, to strengthen 
the capital against attack from the north. The mound 
has not yet been systematically excavated, but 
enough has been done to prove that, like the great 
citadel upon the Kasr, it protected a royal palace 
consisting of a large number of chambers and galleries 
grouped around open courts. From this fact it is clear 
that -a Babylonian citadel was not simply a fortress to 
be used by the garrison for the defence of the city as a 
whole : it was also a royal residence, into which the 
monarch and his court could shut themselves for safety 
should the outer wall of the city itself be penetrated. 
Even in times of peace the king dwelt there, and the 
r«yal stores and treasury, as well as the national 
armoury and* arsenal, were housed in its innumerable 
magazines* In the case of the Southern Citadel of 

■ He tells us that in the circuit of the wall there were a hundred pates, all 
of brass, with brazen lintels and side-posts ; ct. 1., 17!). As yet the exeava- 
tions have not determined the site of any of the gates in the outer wal , but 
the manner in which bronze may have been used to strengthen and decorate 
the doors and gateways is illustrated by the bronze lintel, or step, troin h-zida, 
the temple of Nabfi at Borsippa, now in the British Museum ; cf. 1 late AX VI., 
opposite p. 278, and see further, p. 77, n. 4. ^ ee * *£• * • 



28 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 

Babylon, on which excavations have now been con- 
tinuously carried out for sixteen years, we shall see 
that it formed a veritable township in itself. It was a 
city within a city, a second Babylon in miniature . 1 

The Southern or chief Citadel was built on the 
mound now known as the Kasr, and within it Nebuchad- 
nezzar erected- his principal palace, partly over an earlier 
building of his father Nabopolassar. The palace and 



<u 

CONJECTURAL RESTORATION OF TTTE SOUTHERN CITADEL. 


The view is reconstructed from the north, the conventional mound in tho 
foreground covering the Central Citadel now partially excavated. The Sacred 
Road passes through the Ishlar Gate and along the east side of the palace ; 
further to the east and within the fortifications is tho small temple of Ninmakh. 
The innermost wall encloses the palace of Nebuchadnezzar with its four open 
courts ; the fa<jii>de of the Throne Room, with throe entrances, is visible in tho 
Groat Court. Tho flat roofs of tho palace are broken hero and there by smaller 
courts or light-wells. Compare tho ground-plan on p. 30, Fig. G. 

[After Audrae.] 

citadel occupy the old city-square or centre of Babylon, 
which 'is referred t/) in the inscriptions as the' irsit 
Bn bill, “the Babil place.”" Though far smaller in 
extent than Nebuchadnezzar’s citadel, we may conclude 
that the chief fortress of Babylon always stood upon 
this site, and the city may well have derived its name 
Bab-ili, “the Gate of the Gods,” from the strategic , 
position of its ancient fortress, commanding as it does, 
the main approach to E-sagila, the famous temple of 
the city-god . 3 The earliest ruins in Babykm, which 

1 Indeed during the Neo-Babylonian period it appears to have been known 
as “the City of the Dwelling of the King of Babylon ; see further, p. 41. 

2 Cf. u East India House Inscription,” Col. VII., 1. 40 (Rawlinson, “Chin. 
Inscr. West. Asia,” Vol. I., pi. .07, and Langdon, “Die neubabylonischen 
Kbnigsinschriften,” p. 136 f.). 

:J See below, pp. 71 ff. T races of a very ancient settlement, with much 
pottery (still unpublished), have been found by deep trenching in the fillings 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 29 

date from the age of Hammurabi and the First Dynasty 
of West-Semitic kings, lie under the mound of Merkes 1 
just to the east of E-sagila and the Tower of Babylon, 
proving that the first capital clustered about the shrine 
of the city-god. The streets in that quarter suffered 
but .little change, and their main lines remained un- 
altered down through the Kassite period into Neo- 
Babylonian and later times . 2 It was natural that even 
in the earlier period the citadel should have been 
planted up-stream, to the north of city and temple, 
since the greatest danger of invasion was always from 
the north. 

The outer city-wall, already described, dates only 
»from the Neo- Babylonian period, when ‘the earlier and 
smaller city, expanded with the prosperity which 
followed the victories of Nabopolassar and his son. 
The eastern limits of that earlier city, at any rate to- 
ward the close of the Assyrian domination, did not 
extend beyond the inner wall, which was then the only 
line of defence and, was directly connected * with the 
main citadel. The course of the inner wall may still 
be traced for a length of seventeen hundred metres by 
the low ridge or embankment , 3 running approximately 
north and south, from a point north-east of.the mound 
Homera . 4 It was a double fortification, consisting of 
two walls of crude or unburnt brick, with a space 
between of rather more than seven metres. The thicker 
of -the walls, on the west, which is six and a half jnetres 
in breadth, has large towers built ’across it, projecting 
deeply on the outer side, and alternating, with smaller 
towers placed lengthwise along it. The outer or 
eastern wall has smaller towers at regular intervals. 
Now along the north side of the main or Southern 
Citadel run a pair of very similar walls , 5 also of crude 
• 

below tli c south-east corner of the citadel ; of. Tvoldewey, “ Babylon ’’ p. 82. 
Some flints and stone-implements found elsewhere are also evidence of a still 
earlier prehistoric settlement. 

1 See above, p. 23, Fig. 3, J. 2 See further, pp. 82 ff. 

3 See F\cr. 3, C. 4 Fig. & K. 

6 See below, p. 30, Fig. 0, where the space between the crude brick walls is 
labelled K K. The walls are distinguished, by cross-hatching, from the 
structure of the palace which is of burnt-brick. When the Ishtar Gate (H) 
was built by Nebuchadnezzar, the northern of the two walls received a facing 
on both sides of brick-rubble laid in mud and bitumen, indicated by a heavy 



30 HISTORY OF BABYLON 


brick, and they are continued eastward of the citadel to 
a point where, in the Persian period, the Euphrates 
through a change of course destroyed all further trace 



Fig. 6. 


PLAN OF THE SOUTHERN CITADEL. 

A: East Court of the Palace of Nebuchadnezzar. B: Central Court. C *. Groat 
Court. I) : Private portion of palace built over earlior Palaoe of Nabopolassar. 
E : West extension of palace. F : Throne Room of Nebuchadnezzar. G : Sacred 
Road, known as Aibur-shabii. H : Ishtar Gate. I : Continuation of Sacred 
Road with Lion Frieze. J : Temple of Nin^iakh. K : Space betwoen the two 
fortification-walls of crude brifck, probably Imgur-Bdl and Nimifcti-Bfil. L r Older 
moat-wall. M : Later moat-wall. N : Later fortification thrown out into the 
bed of the Euphrates. P : Southern Canal, probably part of the Libil-khegalla. 
Ii : Basin of canal. S : Persian building. T : Moat, formerly the loft side of 
the Euphrates. V : River-side embankment of the Persian period, a : Gate- 
way to Last Court, b: Gateway to Central Court, c: Gatoway to Great Court, 
d : Double Gateway to privato part of palace. o, f : Temporary ramps used 
during construction of palace, g : Temporary wall of crudo brick, h : Broad 
passage-way, leading northwards to Vaulted Building. < 

[After Koldewey, Reuther and Wetzel.] 

of them . 1 We may confidently assume that in the 
time of Nebuchadnezzar 2 they were linked up with the 

surrounding’ line upon the plan ; but originally this wall too wus of crude 
brick. 

1 Fig. f>, V ; and see further, p. 58, n. 1. 

“ The present crude brick walls of the Kasr fortifications date from his 
reign or from that of his father. 




THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 31 

inner city-wall to the north of Homera and formed 
its continuation after it turned at right angles on its 
way towards the river-bank. This line of fortification 
is of considerable interest, as there is reason to believe 
it may represent the famous double-line of Babylon’s 
defences, which is referred to again and again in the 
inscriptions. 

The two names the* Babylonians gave these walls 
were suggested by their gratitude to and confidence in 
Marduk, the city-god, who for them was the “ Bel,” or 
Lord, par excellence. To the greater of the two, the 
duru or inner wall, they gave the name Imgur-BPl, 
meaning “ Bel has been gracjVbs ” ; while the shalkhu, 
or outer one, they called Ninmli-Bel, that is, probably, 
“ The foundation of Bel,” or “My foundation is Bel .” 1 
The identification of at least one of the crude-brick 
walls near Homera with Nimitti-Bel, has been definitely 
proved by several foundation-cylinders of Ashur-bani- 
pal, the famous Assyrian king who deposed his brother 
Shamash-shum-ukin from the throne of Babylon and 
annexed the country as a province of Assyria . 2 On 
the cylinders he states that the walls Imgur-Bel and 
Nimitti-Bcl had fallen into ruins, and he records his 
restoration of the latter, within the foundation or 
structure of which the cylinders were originally 
immured. I n fortunately they were not found in 
place, but among the debris in the space between the 
wjlls, so that it is not now certain from which wall 
they came. If they hart been deposited in the thicker 
or inner wall, then Nimitti-Bel must have been a 
double line of fortification, and both walls together 
must have borne the name ; and in that case we 
must seek elsewhere for Imgur-Bel. But it is equally 
possible that they came from the narrow or outer 
wall ; and on this alternative Nimitti-Bel may be the 
outer one and Imgur-Bel the broader inner-wall # with 
the widely projecting towers. It is true that only 
further excavation can settle the point ; but meanwhile 
the fortifications on the Kasr have supplied further 
evidence which seems to support the latter Mew. 

1 The meaning of niniitti is not «j ui to certain. 

2 In 048 b.c. ; see further, Chap. V 111. 



32 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


The extensive alterations which took place in the 
old citadel’s fortifications, especially during Nebuchad- 
nezzar’s long reign of forty-three years, led to the 
continual dismantling of earlier structures and the 
enlargement of the area enclosed upon the north 
and west. This is particularly apparent in its north- 
west corner. . Here, at a considerable depth below 

the later fortifica- 
tion-walls, were 
found the remains 
of four earlier 
walls , 1 the dis- 
covery of which 
has thrown con- 
siderable light on 
the topography of 
this portion of 
Babylon. All four 
are ancient quay- 
walls, their north- 
ern and western 
faces sloping 
sharply inwards as 
they rise. Each 
represents a fresh 
rebuilding of the 
quay, as it was 
gradually extended 
to the north and 
west. Fortunate- 
ly, stumped and in- 
seribed bricks were 
employed in considerable quantities in their construc- 
tion, so that it is possible to date the periods of 
rebuilding accurately. 

The earliest of the quay-walls, which is also the 
earliest building yet recovered on the Kasr, is the most 
massive of the four,* and is strengthened at the angle 

1 Figs. 7 and 8, A and 1-3. Fig. 7 gives the ground-plan of this corner 
of the citadel. In Fig. 8 the quay-walls and fortification-walls are given in 
section along the north front, looking from W. to E. In Fig, 8 the quay- 
wall “2 ” cannot be shown, as it is practically a westward extension of “l/’ 



Fin. 7. 


GROUND-PLAN OF QUAY-WALLS AND FORTIFICATION* 
WALLS IN THE N.W. CORNER OF THE 6. CITADEL. 

A : Sargon’s q&ay-wall. B : Older moat-wall. 
C : Later moat-wall of Nebuchadnezzar. D : Inter- 
mediate wall. E : South fortification-wall of crude 
brick, probably Imgur-B&l. F : North fortification - 
wall of crude brisk, probably Nimitti-B61. G : North 
wall of the Southern Citadol. 1 : Ruins of building, 
possibly the quarters of the Captain of the Wall. 
J : Palace of Nabopolassar. K : West Extension 
of the Southern Citadel. L : Connecting wall. 
M : Later wall across channel with grid for water. 
N : Watej, originally tho left side of the Euphrates. 
P : Later fortification of Nebuchadnezzar in former 
bed of the Euphrates. 1-3 : Nabopolassar’s quay- 
walls. N.B. The ^uays and moat-walls are distin- 
guished by dotting. 

[After Koldewcy.l 




THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 33 


with a projecting circular bastion. It is the work of 
Sargon of Assyria , 1 who states the object of the 
structure in a text inscribed upon several of its bricks. 
After reciting his own name and titles, tie declares 
that it was his desire to rebuild Imgur-Bel ; that with 
this object he caused burnt-bricks to be fashioned, and 
built a quay-wall with pitch and bitumen in the depth 



Fig. 8. • 

SECTION OF THE QUAY* WALLS AND FORTIFICATION -WALLS ALONG THE NORTH 
FRONT OF THE SOUTHERN CITADEL. # 

A : Sargon’s quay-wall. B : Older moat-wall. C : Lator moat-wall of Nebu- 
chadnezzar. D : Intermediate wall. E : South fortification -wall of crude brick, 
probably Imgur-B£l. F : North fortification-wall of crude brick, probably Nimitti- 
B61. G ; North wall of Southern Citadel. H ; Remains of oMer crude brick 
wall. 

[After Andrae.] 


of the water from beside the Tshtar Gate to the bank 
of* the Euphrates ; an<i he adds* that he “ founded 
Imgur-Bel and Nimitti-Bel mountain-high upon it .” 2 
The two walls of Sargon, which he here definitely 
names as Imgur-Bel and Nimitti-Bel, were probably 
of crude brick, and were, no doubt, demolished and 
replaced by the later structures of Nabopolassar’s and 
Nebuchadnezzar’s reigns. But they must have occu- 
pied approximately the same position as the two crude 

1 It was built by Sargon within the last five years of his reign, when, 
after his signal defeat of Merodach-baladan in 710 b.c., be ruled Babylonia as 
an Assyrian province. He did not ascend the throne, but contented himself 
with the title i( Governor (shakkanaku) of Babylon,” though ho claimed the 
older title of “ King of Sumer and Akkad. ” See further. Chap. VIII. 

2 Cf. Delitzsch’s translation in Koldewey, “ Babylon,” p. 139 ; Engl. ed. 
p. 138. Elsewhere in the building-inscriptions the Ishtar Gate is named as 
belonging to Imgur-Bel and Nimitti-Bel. 


D 







34 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


brick walls above the quay of Sargon , 1 which run from 
the old bank of the Euphrates to the Ishtar Gate, 
precisely the two points mentioned in Sargon ’s text. 
His evidence is therefore strongly in favour of identi- 
fying these later crude- brick walls, which we have 
already connected with the inner city-wall, as the 
direct successors of his Imgur-IM and his Nimitti-Bel, 
and therefore as inheritors of the ancient names. 

We find further confirmation of this view in one 
of the later quay-walls, which succeeded that of Sargon. 
The three narrow walls already referred to 2 were all 
the work of Nabopolassar, and represent three suc- 
cessive extensions of the quay westward into the bed 
of the stream, 'which in the inscriptions upon their 
bricks is given the name of Arakhtu . 3 But the texts 
make no mention of the city-walls. No inscriptions 
at all have been found in the structure of the next 
extension, represented by the wall B, which, like 
the latest quay-wall (C), is not rounded off' in the 
earlier manner, but is strengthened at the corner with 
a massive rectangular bastion. It was in this latest 
and most substantial of all the quay-walls that further 
inscriptions were found referring to lmgur-Bel. They 
prove that .this wall was the work of Nebuchadnezzar, 
who refers in them to Nabopolassar’s restoration of 
lmgur-Bel and records that he raised its banks with 
biturn ai and burnt-brick mountain-high. It is there- 
fore cl.ear that this was the quay-wall of Imgur Bel, 
which it supported m the manner of Sargon s earlier 
structure. That the less important Nimitti-Bel is not 
mentioned in these texts does not necessitate our placing 
it elsewhere, in view of Sargon s earlier reference. 

We may therefore provisionally regard the two 
crude-brick walls along the Kasr’ti northern front 4 as 
a section of the famous defences of Babylon, and picture 
them® as running eastward till they meet the inner 


1 E and F in Figs. 7 and H. In Fig. 7 it will be seen that there are 
remains of a building (I) at the western end of the two walls, between them 
and the quay-wall B. This may have been the quarters occupied by the 
Captain of the W all. 

2 Nos. 1-3 in Fig. 7. 

3 On the meaning of the name, Bee below, p. 30. 

4 E and F in Figs. 7 and 8. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 35 

city- wall by Homera. The point at which they 
extended westward across the Euphrates can, as yet, 
only be conjectured. But it is significant that the 
angle of the western walls, which may still be traced 
under mounds to the north of Sinjar village , 1 is 
approximately in line with the north front of the 
Kasr and the end of the inner wall -by Homera. 
Including these western 'walls within our scheme, the 
earlier Babylon would have been rectangular in ground- 
plan, about a quarter of it only upon the right bank, 
and the portion east of the river forming approximately 
a square. The Babylon of the Kassite period and of the 
First Dynasty must have been smaller still, its area cover- 
ing little more than the three principal* mounds ; and, 
though part «f its street net-work has been recovered, no 
trace of its fortifications has apparently survived. 

The evidence relating to the city’s walls and 
fortifications has been summarized rather fully, as it has 
furnished the chief subject of controversy in connexion 
with the excavations. It should be added that the view 
suggested above is not shared by Dr. Ivoldewey, whose 
objections to the proposed identification o*f Imgur-Bel 
rest on his interpretation of two phrases in a cylinder 
of Nabopolassar, which was found out of plane in debris 
close to the east wall of the Southern Citadel. In it 
Nabopolassar records his own restoration of Imgur-BH, 
which he tells us had fallen into decay, and he states that 
he •“ founded it in the primaeval abyss,” adding the 
words, “ I caused Babylon to be enclosed with it to- 
wards the four winds. ” 2 F rom the reference to the abyss, 
Dr. Koldewcy concludes that it had deep foundations, 
and must therefore have been constructed of burnt, not 
crude, brick ; while from the second phrase he correctly 
•infers that it must have formed a quadrilateral closed on 
all sides. But that, as we have seen, is precisely the 
ground-plsjn we obtain by including the remain* of 
walls west of the river. And, in view of the well-known 
tendency to exaggeration in these Neo-Babylonian 
records, we should surely not credit any single metaphor 
with the accuracy of a modern architect’s specification. 

1 See above, p. 23^ Fi#. 3. Z ; cf. also, p. 24, n. 1. 

2 C'f. Delitzscli’s translation in “ Babylon,” p. 135 f. 



36 


HISTOKY OF BABYLON 


If a single section of the wall had been furnished, during 
restoration, with a burnt-brick substructure, it would 
have been enough to justify the royal claim. 

The manner in which the Euphrates was utilized for 
the defence and water-supply of the citadel has also been 
illustrated by the excavations. The discovery of Sargon’s 
inscriptions proved that in his day the river flowed along 
the western face of his quay-wall ; 1 while the inscriptions 
on bricks from the three successive quay-walls of 
Nabopolassar 3 state, in each case, that he used them to 
rebuild the wall of a channel he calls the “ Arakhtu,” 
using the name in precisely the same way as Sargon 
refers to the Euphrates. The simplest explanation is 
that in Nabopolassar ’s time the Arakhtu was the name 
for that section of the Euphrates which, washed the 
western side of the citadel, and that its use in any case 
included the portion of the citadel-moat, or canal, along 
its northern face, which formed a basin opening directly 
upon the river. 3 The “ Arakhtu ” may thus have been 
a generai term, not only for thi? basin, but for the 
whole water-front from the north-west corner of the 
citadel to some point on the left bank to the south of it. 
It may perhaps have been further extended to include 
the river frontage of the Tower of Babylon, since it was 
into the Arakhtu that Sennacherib cast the tower on 
his destruction of the city. Within this stretch of 
water, particularly along the northern quays, vessels and 
keleks, would have been mooted which arrived down 
stream with supplies for the palace and the garrison. 
The Arakhtu, in fact, may well have been the name for 
the ancient harbour or dock of Babylon. 

Some idea of the appearance of the quays may be 
gathered from the right-hand corner of the restoration 
in Fig. 5* It is true that the outer quay-wall appears* 
to have been built to replace the inner one. while in the 
illustration both are shown. But since the height of the 
citadel and of its walls was continually being raised, 

1 See above, p. 33. 2 See above, p. 34. 

3 Its employment with the determinative mini, tf river h or 41 canal/* 
does not prove that it was at this time a canal in the strict sense. Accord- 
ing to the explanation offered in the text, it would have been a section of 
the river, including an open basin and probably a canal In earlier periods 
it may have been simply a canal, which led off from the river at this point 

4 See above, p. 28. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 37 

the arrangement there suggested is by no means 
impossible. But in the later part of his reign Nebu- 
chadnezzar changed the aspect of the river-front entirely. 
To the west of the quay- walls, in the bed of the river, he 
threw out a massive fortification with immensely thick 
walls, from twenty to twenty-five metres in breadth . 1 
It was constructed entirely of burnt-brick' and bitumen, 
and, from his reference to it in an inscription from 
Sippar, it would seem that his object in building it 
was to prevent the formation of sandbanks in the river, 
which in the past may have caused the flooding of the 
left bank above E-Sagila . 2 A narrow channel 3 was left 
between it and the old quay, along which the river water 
continued to flow through gratings. This no doubt acted 
as an overt! oV for the old northern moat of the citadel, 
since the latter fed the supply-canal, which passed round 
the palace and may still be traced along its south side . 4 

It is possible that the subsequent change in the 
course of the Euphrates may be traced in part to this 
huge river-fortification. Its massive structure suggests 
that it had to withstand considerable water-pressure, 
and it may well have increased any tendency of the 
stream to break away eastward. However that may be, 
it is certain that for a considerable time during the 
Persian and Seleucid periods it flowed round to the 
eastward of the Kasr, close under three sides of the 

1 See above, p. 80, Fig. o, N. 

* Oil a foundation-cylinder from Sippar in the JSritish Museum (Not 911 14 ; 
A. II. 82 — 7 — 14, 1042) Nebuchadnezzar writes: “For the protection of 
E-sagila and Babylon, that sandbanks ( pa-ri-im ) should not form in the bed of 
the Euphrates, I caused a great fortification to bo made in the river, of bitu- 
men and burnt-brick. Its foundation I laid in the abyss, and its head 1 
raised mountain-high ” ; of. Ball, “ Proe. Soc. Bibl. Arch.”, X., May 1888, 
FI. IV., Col. ii., 11. 19-24, and Langdon, “ Neubabylonischen Konigs- 
inschriften,” p. 100 f. 

• # 3 See p. 80, Fig. 6, T, and»p. 82, Fig. 7, N. 

4 Fig.0,P, R. It re-entered the river close under the citadel-wall, for its out- 
let has been found fn the later river- wall of Nabonidus. It was perhaps the canal 
called in the inscriptions Libil-khegalla, fi May it bring abundance.” ft will 
be seen from flie plan that the remains of the canal to the south-east show a 
narrow channel (P),less than three metres in breadth, but widening westward 
of the Sacred Road (G) into a broad basin (R). This represents a reconstruction, 
probably of the time of Neriglissar, who built a bridge for the road across 
the canal. Formerly the road crossed the canal by a dam with walled 
embankments, of which traces have been found below the canal-walls. 
Beneath the embankment the water probably flowed through grated sluices 
like these spanning Nebuchadnezzar s narrow channel between his river- 
fortification and the citadel. 



38 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

. 

■ 4 citadel ani rejoined its former* toed to the north of 
< Marduk’s templeand the Tower of Babylon.' Its course 
east of the Ishtar Gate is marked by a late Embank- 
ment sloping outwards, which supported the thicker of 
the crude-brick walls at the point where they suddenly 
break off '. 1 Beyond this embankment only mud and 
river sediment were found. .The water-course to the 
south of the citadel is probably the point where the river 
turned again towards the channel it had deserted. A 
trench that was dug here showed that the present soil 
is formed of silt deposited by water, and beyond the 
remains of the earlier canal no trace of any building 
was recovered., This temporary change in the river’s 
course, which the excavations have definitely proved, 
explains another puzzle presented by the classical 
tradition — the striking discrepancy between the actual 
position of the principal ruins of Babylon in relation to 
the river and their recorded position in the Persian 
period. « Herodotus , 2 for example, places the fortress 
with the palace of the kings (that 'is, the Kasr), on the 
opposite bank to the sacred precinct of Zeus Belus 
(that is, E-temen-anki, the Tower of Babylon). But we 
have now obtained proof that they were separated at 
that time' by the Euphrates, until the river returned 
to its former and present bed, probably before the close 
of the Seleucid period. 

The greater part of the Southern Citadel is 
occupied by the enormous palace on which Nebu- 
chadnezzar lavished his energies during so many years 
of his reign. On ascending the throne of Babylon, he 
found the ancient fortress a very different place to the 
huge structure he bequeathed to his successors. He 
had lived there in his father’s life-time, but Nabopo- 
lassar had been content with a comparatively mod&st 
dwelling. And when his son, flushed with his victory 
over the hosts of Egypt, returned to Babylon to take 
the hands of Bel, he began to plan a palace that should 
be worthy of the empire he had secured. Of the* old 
palace of Nabopolassar, in which at first he was obliged 
to dwell, very little now remains. What is left of it 
constitutes the earliest building of which traces now 

1 See above, j>. 30, and cf. Fi#. 0, V. 2 I M UJl, 





THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 39 

exist within the palace area. Nebuchadnezzar describes 
it, before his own building operations, as extending 
from the Euphrates eastward to the Sacred Road ; 
and the old palace-enclosure undoubtedly occupied 
that site. Traces of the old fortification-wall have 
been found below the east front of the later palace, and 
the arched doorway which gave access to its open 
court, afterwards filled 'up and built over by Nebuchad- 
nezzar, has been found in a perfect state of preservation . 1 

The old palace itself 2 did not reach beyond the 
western side of Nebuchadnezzar’s great court . 3 The 
upper structure, as we learn from the East India House 
Inscription , 4 was of crude brick, which was demolished 
for the later building. But Nabopolassar, following a 
custom which had survived unchanged from the time of 
Hammurabi, had placed his crude-brick walls upon 
burnt-brick foundations. These his son made use of, 
simply strengthening them before erecting his own 
walls upon them. Thus this section of the new palace 
retained the old ground-plan to a great 'extent un- 
changed. The strength and size of its walls are remark- 
able and may in part be explained by fehe crude-brick 
upper structure of the earlier building, which necessarily 
demanded a broader base for its walls. 

When Nebuchadnezzar began building he dwelt in 
the old palace, while he strengthened the walls of its 
open court on the east and raised its level for the solid 
platform on which his own palace was to rise . 5 For a 
time the new and the bid palace were connected by two 
ramps of unburnt-brick , 6 which were afterwards filled 
in below the later pavement of the great court ; and 
we may picture the king ascending the ramps with his 
architect on his daily inspection of the work. As soon 
as the new palace 9n the east was ready he moved into 
it, and, having demolished the old one, he built up his 

• 

1 If wef except the foundations of the Ishtar Gate, this door is the only 
Structure recovered on the site of Babylon which gives us an idea of what 
a building looked like above ground-level. Elsewhere the ground-plan is our 
only guide. 

See p. 30, Fig. 0, 1). 3 Fig. 6, C. 

4 Ool. vii., 1. 34. *’ Fig. 0, A — 0. 

6 Fig. G, h and./'. The hatched wall, which runs between them($r), was a 
. temporary containing wall, also of crude brick. 



40 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 

own walls upon its foundations, and filled in the inter- 
mediate spaces witn earth and rubble until he raised its 
pavement lo the eastern level. Still later he built out 
a further extension 1 along its western side. In the 
account he has left us of the palace-building the king 
says : “ I laid firm its foundation and raised it mountain- 
high with bitumen and burnt-brick. Mighty cedars I 
•caused to be stretched out at length for its roofing. Door- 
leaves of cedar overlaid with copper, thresholds and 
sockets of bronze I placed in its doorways. Silver and 
gold and precious stones, all that can be imagined of 
costliness, splendour, wealth, riches, all that was highly 
esteemed, I heaped up within it, 1 stored up immense 
abundance of royal treasure therein.” 2 

A good general idea of the palace groundTplan, in its 
final form, may be obtained from Fig. 6. The main 
entrance was in its eastern front, through a gate-way, 3 
flanked on its outer side by towers, and known as the 
Bab Belti, or “ Lady Gate, ” no doubt from its proxi- 
mity to the temple of the goddess Ninmakh/ The 
gate-house consists of an entrance hall, with rooms 
opening at the sides for the use of the palace-guard. 
The eastern part of the palace is built to the north and 
south of thrpe great open courts, 5 separated from each 
other by gateways 6 very like that at the main entrance 
to the palace. It will be noticed that, unlike the 
arrangement of a European dwelling, the larger rooms 
are always placed on the south side of the court facing 
to the north, for in th<? sub-tropical climate of Babylonia 
the heat of the summer sun was not courted, and these 
chambers would have been in the shade throughout 
almost the whole of the day. 

Some of the larger apartments, including possibly 
the chambers of the inner gateways, must have served 
as courts of justice, for from the Hammurabi period 
onward we know that the royal palace was the resort 
of litigants, whose appeals in the earlier period were 

1 See above, p. 80, Fig. 6 , E. 

2 East India House Inscription, Col. vii., 1. 01 —Col. viii., ]. J8 ; cf. 
Rawlinson, “Cun. Jnscr. West. Asia/’ Vol. I., pi. .07, and Langdon, “ Neu* 
babylonischen Konigsinschriften,” p. 130 f. 

* Fig. 0, a . 4 Fig. 0, ,/. 

6 A, B and C, 0 Marked U and c on the plan. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 41 

settled by the king himself , 1 and later by the judges 
under his supervision. Every kind of commercial busi- 
ness was carried on within the palace precincts, and not 
only were regular lawsuits tried, but any transaction 
that required legal attestation was most conveniently 
carried through there. Proof of this may be seen 
in the fact that so many of the Neo-Babylonian 
contracts that have been recovered on the site of 
Babylon are dated from the Al-Bit-shar-Babili, “the 
City of the King of Babylon’s dwelling,” doubtless 
a general title for the citadel and palace-area. All 
government business was also transacted here, and 
we may provisionally assign to the higher ministers 
and officials of the court the great apartment and the 
adjoining dwellings on the south side of the Central 
Court of the palace . 2 For many of the more important 
officers in the king’s service were doubtless housed on 
the premises ; and to those of lower rank we may 
assign the similar buf rather smaller dwellings, which 
flank the three counts on the north and the Entrance 
Court upon the south side as well. Even royal manu- 
factories were carried on within the palace, to judge 
from the large number of alabaster jars, found beside 
their cylindrical cores, in one room in the -south-west 
corner by the outer palace-wall . 3 

It will be seen from the ground-plan that these 
dwellings consist of rooms built around open courts 
or. light-wells ; most of them are separate dwellings, 
isolated from their neighbours, and having doors open- 
ing on to the greater courts or into passage-ways running 
up from them. No trace of any windows has been 
found within the buildings, and it is probable that they 
were very sparsely employed. But we must not con- 
• elude that they were- never used, since no wall of the 
palace has been preserved for more than a few feet 
in height^ and, for the greater part, their foundations 

1 See further, Chap. V. 

2 Fig. G, B. 

3 Such jars, or alahastra, were highly esteemed ; and the royal factory 
need not surprise us, since the king not only employed them for his own use, 
hut sent the larger sort away as presents. In the Persian period we know 
that Xerxes despatched some as royal gifts, inscribed with his own name and 
titles, as far afield as Egypt and the western coast of Asia Minor. 



42 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 

only have survived. But there is no doubt that, like 
the modern houses of the country, all the dwellings, 
whether in palace or city, had flat roofs, which formed 
the natural sleeping-place for their inhabitants during the 
greater part of the year. Towards sunset, when the neat 
of the day was past, they would ascend to the house- 
tops to enjoy the evening breeze ; during the day a 
window would have been merely a further inlet for 
the sun. The general appearance of the palace is 

no doubt ac curately 
rendered in the 
sketch alrea 
given . 1 2 

The most inte- 
resting < apartment 
within the palace 
is one that may be 
identified as Nebu- 
chadnezzar’s 'I'll rone 
Jlooin. 'Phis is the 
room immediately 
to the south of the 
Cheat Court." It is 
the largest chamber 
of the palace, and 
since the walls on 
the longer sides are 
six metres thick, iar 
broader than those 
at the ends, it is 
possible that they supported a barrel-vaulting. It has 
three entrances from the court , 3 and in the back 
wall opposite the centre one is a broad niche, doubly 
recessed into the structure of th« wall, where we myy . 
assume the royal throne once stood. During any elabo- 
rate^court ceremony the king would thus have been 
visible upon his throne, not only to those Within the 
chamber, but also from the central portion of the Great 

1 See above, p. 28, Fig. 5. 

2 See Fig. 6, F ; this portion of the ground-plan of the palace is given on 
a larger scale in Fig. 9. 

3 Fig. 9, b, c and d. 



Fig. 9. 

TLAN OF THE THRONE ROOM OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR 
AND BART OF THE PRIVATE PALACE. 


C : Great Court. F : Throne Room, a . Recess 
in back-wall for throne, b -d : Entrances to 
Throne Room from Court, c-g : Entrances from 
side and back. 13 : Open courts, surrounded 
by rooms for the royal service. 4, 5 : Open courts 
in the south-east corner of thb Private Palacd. 

[After Koldevvey.] 




THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 43 


Court. It was in this portion of the palace that some 
traces of the later Babylonian methods of mural decora- 
tion were discovered. For, while the inner walls of 
ttye Throne Room were merely washed over with a 



Fig. 10. 

DESIGN IN ENAMELLED BRICK FROM THE FACADE OF TIIE THRONE *,OOM 

In the drawing light and dark blue are indicated by light and heavy horizontal 
shading ; yellow by a dotted surface. 

plaster of white gypsum, the brickwork of the outer 
facade, which faced the court, was decorated with 
brightly-coloured enamels. 

Only fragments of the enamelled surface were dis- 





44 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


covered, but these sufficed to restore the scheme of 
decoration. A series of yellow columns with bright 
blue capitals, both edged with white borders, stand 
out against a dark blue ground. The capitals are the 
most striking feature of the composition. Each con- 
sists of two sets of double volutes, one above the 
other, and a white rosette with yellow centre comes 
partly into sight above them. Between each member 
is a bud in sheath, forming a trefoil, and linking the 
volutes of the capitals by means of light blue bands 
which fall in a shallow curve from either side of it. 
Still higher on the wall ran a frieze of double palmettes 
in similar colouring, between yellow line-borders, the 
centres of the latter picked out with lozenges coloured 
black and yellow, and black and white, alternately. 
The rich effect of this enamelled facade of the Throne 
lioom was enhanced by the decoration of the court 
gateway, the surface of which w;is adorned in a like 
fashion with figures of lions. So too were the gate- 
ways of the other eastern courts, to judge from the 
fragments of enamel found there, but the rest of the 
court-walls were left undecorated or, perhaps, merely 
received a coat of plaster. The fact that the interior 
of the Throne Room, like the rest of the chambers of 
the palace, was without ornamentation of any sort favours 
the view that heat, and light with it, was deliberately 
excluded by the absence of windows in the walls. 

The chambers behind the Throne Room, reached 
by two doorways in the back wall , 1 were evidently for 
the king’s service, and are ranged around three open 
courts ; and in the south-west corners of two of them, 
which lie immediately behind the Throne Room wall, 
are wells, their positions indicated on the plan by 
small open circles. The walls of bach of these small 
chambers are carried down through the 'foundations 
to water-level, and the intermediate space is .filled in 

1 Fi g 9, /and g. The courts (numbered on the plan 1 ,‘i) are square like 
the small courts or light wells in the rest of the palace, and like them were 
evidently left open in order to give light and air to the chambers round them. 

In the Persian period one of them (No 1) was roofed over wholly or in part, 
as the bases for two pillars, formed of palm-trunks, are still in place, which 
were clearly intended to support roof-beams. These are indicated by solid 
circles on the plan. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 45 

around the wells with rubble-packing. This device 
was evidently adopted to secure an absolutely pure 
supply of water for the royal table. But the private 
part of the palace, occupied by the women and the 
rest of the royal household, was evidently further to 
the west, built over the earlier dwelling of Nabopo- 
lassar. It will be seen from the ground-plan that this 
is quite distinct from the eastern or official portion of 
the palace, from which it is separated by a substantial 
wall and passage-way running, with the Great Court, 
the whole width of the palace-area. The character 
of the gateway-building, which formed its chief 
entrance and opened on the Great Court, is also signi- 
ficant. 1 For the towers, flanking the gateways to the 
official coufts, are here entirely absent, and the pathway 
passes through two successive apartments, the second 
smaller than the first and with a porters’ service-room 
opening off it. The, entrance for the king’s own use 
was in the southern half of the passage-way, and lies 
immediately between the side entrance to the Throne 
Room 2 and another doorway in the passage leading 
to one of the small courts behind it. 3 In two of the 
chambers within the private palace, both opening on to 
Court 5, are two more circular wells, walled in for 
protection, and here too the foundations of each 
chamber are carried down to water-level and filled 
in with brick-rubble, as in the case of the wells 
behind the Throne Room. . 

. The same care that was taken to ensure the purity of 
the water-supply may also be detected in the elaborate 
drainage-system, with which the palace was provided, 
with the object of carrying off the surface-water from the 
flat palace-roofs, the open courts, and the fortification- 
walls. The larger ‘drains were roofed with corbelled 
courses ; the smaller ones, of a simpler but quite effective 
construction, were formed of bricks set together ih the 
shape of a V and closed in at the top with other bricks 

1 See above, p. .90, Kip. (>, d. 

2 See p. 42, Fig. 9, e. 

a Fig. 9, 1. This is the court roofed in during the Persian period (see 
p. 44, n. 1), evidently to secure the king a second covered passage-way 
when passing from the Throne Hooin or from some of its adjoining chambers 
to the private palace. 



46 


HISTORY OF BABYLON * 

laid flat. The tops of the fortifications, both in the 
citadel itself and on the outer and inner city-wall, were 
drained by means of vertical shafts, or gutters, running 
down within the solid substructures of the towers ; 
and in the case of crude-brick buildings these have a 
lining of burnt-brick. In some of the temples, which, 
as we shall see, were invariably built of crude brick , 1 
this form of drainage was also adopted. 

One other building within the palace deserves 
mention, as it has been suggested that it may represent 



PLAN OF THE NORTH-KART COBtfFIl OF THE TAfrACE WITH THE VAULTED HVILD15G. 

A: East Court of the Palace. B: Contral Court. H : Ishtar Gate. 1 : Vaulted 
Building. J : Southern fortification-wall of crude brick, probably Imgur-B&l. 
h : Passage-way leading to the Vaultod Building, m, n : Entrances to the Vaulted 
Building. 1- 15: Small open courts or light- wells in official residencies. 

[After Koldewey.] 

the remains of the famous Hanging Gardens of 
Babylon . 2 It is reached from the Yiorth-east corner of 
the Central Court 3 along a broad passage-way , 4 from 
which a branch passage turns off at right angles ; and 
on the left side of this narrower passage are its two 
entrances . 5 It must be confessed that at first sight the 
ground-plan of this building does not suggest a garden 

1 See below, p. (52 f. 2 Fig. 11, I. 

3 B, in Fig. band 11. 1 Marked h on the plans. 

b Fig. 11, m and n. 




THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 47 

of any sort, least of all one that became famous as a 
wonder of the ancient world. It will be seen that the 
central part, or core, of the building is surrounded by a 
strong wall and within are fourteen narrow cells or 
chambers, seven on each side of a central gangway . 1 
The cells were roofed in with semicircular arches, 
forming a barrel vault over each ; and the whole is 
encircled by a narrow corridor, flanked on the north 
and east sides by the outer palace-wall. This part of 
the building, both the vaulted chambers and the sur- 
rounding corridor, lies completely below the level of 
the rest of the palace. The small chambers, some of 
them long and narrow like the vaults, which enclose the 
central core upon the west and south, are on the palace 
level ; and the subterranean portion is reached by a 
stairway in one of the rooms on the south side . 2 3 

There are two main reasons which suggested the 
identification of this budding with the Hanging Gardens. 
The first is that hewn stone was used in its construction, 
which is attested by the numerous broken fragments 
discovered among its ruins. With the exception of the 
Sacred Road and the bridge over the Euphrates, there 
is only one other place on the whole site of Babylon 
where hewn stone is used in bulk for building purposes, 
and that is the northern wall of the Kasr. Now, in all 
the literature referring to Babylon, stone is only recorded 
to have been used for buildings in two places, and those 
are*tlre north wall of tli£ Citadel ayd in the Hanging 
Gardens, a lower layer in the latter’s roofing, below the 
layer of earth, being described as made of stone. These 
facts certainly point to the identification of the Vaulted 
Building with the Hanging Gardens.® Moreover, 
Berossus definitely places them within the buildings by 
•which Nebuchadnezzar enlarged his father's palace ; but 
this reference would apply equally to the later Central 
Citadel constructed by Nebuchadnezzar immediately to 

1 In Fig. 11 the reference letter I., to indicate the building, is marked 
along the gangway. 

54 It is marked ‘on the plan, and lies between the entrance m and the south- 
east corner of the building. 

3 The Kpi/iaarbs Trapadeuros of Berossus, the Kpffiaorhs tcrjnos of ( tosias aild 
Strabo, the pcnsiles horti of C’urtius Rulus ; their descriptions are quoted at 
length by Koldewey, “Babylon,” pp. i>5 ff., Engl, cd., pp. !M> ff. 



48 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

the north of his main palace. The size of the building 
is also far greater in Strabo and Diodorus than that of 
the Vaulted Building, the side of the quadrangle, 
according to these writers, measuring about four times 
the latter’s length. But discrepancy in figures, of this 
sort, as we have already seen in the case of the outer 
walls of the city, is easily explicable and need not be 
reckoned as a serious objection . 1 

The second reason which pointed to the identification 
is that, in one of the small chambers near the south- 
west corner of the outer fringe of rooms on those two 
sides, there is a very remarkable well. It consists of 
three adjoining shafts, a square one in the centre 
flanked by two of oblong shape. This arrangement, 
unique so far as the remains of ancient Babylon are 
concerned, may be most satisfactorily explained on the 
assumption that we here have the water-supply for a 
hydraulic machine, constructed^ on the principle of 
a chain-pump. The buckets, attached to an endless 
chain, would have passed up one of the outside wells, 
over a great wheel fixed abo\ r e them, and, after empty- 
ing their water into a trough as they passed, would 
have descended the other outside well for refilling. The 
square well in the centre obviously served as an 
inspection-chamber, down which an engineer could 
descend to clean the well out, or to remove any ob- 
struction. In the modern contrivances of this sort, 
sometimes employed to-day in Babylonia to rrfise a 
continuous flow of water to the irrigation-trenches, the 
motive-power for turning the winch is supplied by 
horses or other animals moving round in a circle. In 
the Vaulted Building there would have been scarcely 
room for such an arrangement, and it is probable that 
gangs of slaves were employed to work a couple of 
heavy hand-winches. The discovery of* the well un- 
doubtedly serves to strengthen the case for identification. 

Two alternative schemes are put forward to re- 
constitute the upper structure of this building. Its 


1 Koldewey’s explanation, that the total circuit of the building has been 
confused with the length of a single side, need not he invoked, in view of the 
natural tendency of ancient writers to exaggeration in such matter** 
especially when reproducing measurements at second or third hand. 





THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 49 

massjve walls suggest in any case that they were in- 
tended to support a considerable weight, and it may be 
that^the core of the building, constructed over the 
subterranean vaults, towered nigh above its surround- 
ing chambers which are on the palace-level. This 
would have been in accordance with the current 
conception of a hanging garden ; and, 'since on two 
sides it was bounded by the palace- wall, its trees and 
vegetation would have been visible from outside the 
citadel. Seen thus from the lower level of the town, 
the height of the garden would have been reinforced by 
the whole height of the Citadel-mound on which the 
palace stainds, and imagination once kindled might have 
played freely with its actual measurements. 

On the dther hand, the semicircular arches, still pre- 
served within the central core, may have directly 
supported the thick layer of earth in which the trees 
of the garden were planted. These would then have'jt 
been growing on the palace-level, as it were in if garden- 
court, perhaps surrosnded by a pillared colonnade with 
the outer chambers opening on to it on t]ie west and 
south sides. In either scheme the subterranean vaults 
can only have been used as stores or magazines, since 
they were entirely without light. As a matter of fact, 
a large number of tablets were found in the stair- 
way-chamber that leads down to them ; and, since the 
inscriptions upon them relate to grain, it would seem 
that some at least werejused as granaries. But this is 
a use to which they could only have been put if the 
space above them was not a garden, watered continu- 
ously by an irrigation-pump, as moisture would have 
been bound to reach the vaults . 1 

Whichever alternative scheme we adopt, it must be 
•confessed that the Hanging Gardens have not justified 
their reputation. And if they merely formed a garden- 
court, as Dr. Koldewey inclines to believe, it is difficult 
to explain the adjectives Kpe/aaerro? and pensilis. For 
the subterranean vaults would have been completely 
out of sight, and, even when known to be below the 

1 This objection seems to mo to outweigh any correspondence in details 
between the architectural structure of the Vaulted Building and the texts of 
Curtius Rufus or Diodorus. 


E 



50 


IIJSTORY OF BABYLON 

pavement-level, were not such as to exditoe wonder or 
to suggest the idea of suspension in the air. One can- 
not help suspecting that the vaulted building may 
really, after all, be nothing more than the palace- 
granary, and the triple well one of the main water- 
supplies for domestic use. We may, at least for the 
present, be permitted to hope, that a more convincing 
site for the gardens will be found in the Central Citadel 
after further excavation. 

In the autumn of 1901 the writer spent some time 
in Babylon, stopping with Dr. Koldewey in the sub- 



BULL IN ENAMELLED BRICK FROM 7 HE IK UTAH GATE. 

stantial expedition-house they have built with fine 
burnt-brick from Nebuchadnezzar’s palace. At that 
time he had uncovered a good deal of the palace, and it 
was # even then possible to trace out the walls of the 
Throne Room and note the recess where the throne 
itself had stood. But, beyond the fragments of the 
enamelled facade, little of artistic interest had been 
found, and on other portions of the site the results had 
been still more disappointing. The deep excavation of 
E-sagila had already been made, the temple of the god- 
dess Ninmakh had been completely excavated, and 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 51 

work was 1b full swing on that of the god Ninib. All 
proved to be of un burnt brick , 1 2 and the principal decora- 
tion of the walls was a thin lime- wash. Their dis- 
coverer was inclined to be sceptical of Babylon’s fabled 
splendour. 

But in the following spring he made the discovery 
which still remains the most striking achievement of 
the expedition, and has rehabilitated the fame of that 
ancient city. This was the great Ishtar Gate, which 
spanned Babylon’s Sacred Way, and the bulls and 
dragons with which it was adorned have proved that 



the glyptic art of Babylonia attained a high level of 
’perfection during its later period. The gate was 
erected at the point where the Sacred Way entered 
the older city. It was, in fact, the main gate in the 
two walls of crude brick along the north side of the 
Citadel, which we have seen reason to believe were 
the famous defences, Imgur-Bel and Nimitti-Bel.* 

1 For the probable reason for this practice- in tein pie-construction, see 
below, p. 63. 

2 See above, pp. 31 ff. 




52 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


Its structure, when rebuilt by Nebuchadnezzar, was 
rather elaborate . 1 * It is a double gateway, consisting 
of two separate gate-houses , 1 each with an outer and 
an inner door . 3 The reason for this is that the line of 
fortification is a double one, and each of its walls has 



Fig. 14. 

G BOUND FI .AN OF THE IK 1ITAR GATE. 

The ground -plan of the gateway is indicated in black ; other walls and buildings 
are hatched. A . Sacred Way to north of gate. B : (late of outer wall. C: Gate- 
way Court. D : Gate of inner wall. E: Space botween west wings. F : Space 
between east wings. G : Sacred Way to south of gate. H : North-cast corner 
of Palace. K : Templo of the goddess Ninmakh. S : Steps leading down from 
level of Sacred Way. 1, 2 ; Doorways of outer gato. 3, 4 : Doorways of inner 
gate. 

c [After Kolde^ey.] 

a gateway of its own. But the gates are united into 
a single structure by means of short connecting walls, 
which complete the enclosure of the Gateway Court . 4 

1 Nebuchadnezzar has left ns a description of bis building of the gateway 
in the * 4 East India House Inscription/’ (!ol."v., 1. 65-Gol. vi., 1. 21 (aoo 1 
Rawlinson, “ Cun. Inscr. West. Asia,” I., pi. 56, and cf. I^angdon, “ Neubab. 

Kdni^sinschriften,” p. 132 f.). Jle records how he decorated the building with 
wild oxen and dragons in enamelled brick, roofed it with cedar, and set up 
in it doors which he sheathed in copper and fitted with thresholds and hinges 
of bronze. He also set bronze oxen and dragons beside the entrances ; bases 
for some of these appear to have been found by the excavators. 

3 Fig. 14, B and IX In the plan the structure of the gateway, built of 
burnt brick, is indicated in black. The adjacent fortification-walls, of un- 
burrit brick, are hatched ; so too are the areas covered by parts of the temple 
of Ninmakh and the palace. 

# The outer gate-house (B) has doors 1 and 2 ; the doors of the inner 
gatehouse (Dj are numbered 3 and 4. 

4 C. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 53 

Dr. Ivoldewey considers it probable that this court was 
roofed in, to protect the great pair of doors, which 
swung back into it, from the weather. But if so, the 
whole roofing of the gateway must have been at the 
same low level ; whereas the thick walls of the inner 
gate-house suggest that it and its arched doorways 
rose higher than the outer gateway, as is suggested 
in the section 1 and in the reconstruction of the Citadel . 3 



Pig. 15. 

BECTION OP THE ISIITAR GA.TE. 

The soction is conjooturally restored, looking from west to east ; tho index 
capitals and figures correspond to those in Fig. ^4. A : Sacred Way to north of 
gato. B: (lato of outer wall. C: Gateway Court. D: Gato of inner wall. 

•G : Sacred way to south of ga'o. 1, 2 : Doorways of outer gate. 3, 4 : Doorways 
of inner gate, a: Traces of pavemont. b: Lovel of second pavemont. c: Level 
of final pavement, d : Present ground-level, e : Level of ground beforo excava- 
tion. It will bo noticed that tho portions of the gato preserved aro all bolow the 
final pavement-level. 

[After Andrao.] 


ft thus appears more probable that the court between 
the two gateways was left open, and that the two 
inner arches 3 rose far higher than those of the outer 
gate . 4 And there is the more reason for this, as an 
open court would have given far more light for viewing 
the remarkable decoration of the gateway upon its 
inner walls. 


1 Fig. 15. 

8 Figs. 14 and 15, Nos. 3 and 4. 


2 See altovi*, p. 28, Fig. 5. 
4 Nos. 1 and 2. 






54 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


It will be noticed in the plan that the central 
roadway is not the only entrance through the gate ; 
on each side of the two central gate-houses a wing is 
thrown out, making four wings in all. These also are 
constructed of burnt-brick, and they serve to connect 
the gate with the two fortification-walls of unburnt 
brick. In each wing is a further door, giving access 
to the space between the walls. Thus, in all, the gate 
has three separate entrances, and no less than eight 



Fig. 16. 


DIAGRAM TO BIIOW THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE HKASTS OF THE JSHTAlt GATE. 

The ground-plan of the gate is shown in outline, the arrows indicating the 
positions of Bulls or Dragons still in place upon its walls. The head of each 
arrow points in the same direction as the beast to which it refers. Where no 
boasts are preserved, the foundations of the structure are indicated by a dotted 
line. The index letters correspond to those in Fig. 14. 

[After Koldovvey.] 

doorways, four ranged along the central roadway, und 
two in each double wing. 

The whole wall-surface of the gateway on its 
northern side, both central towers and side-wings, was 
decorated with alternate rows of bulls and dragons in 
brick relief, the rows ranged one above the other ug 
the surface of walls and towers. The decoration is 

r 

continued over the whole interior surface of the central 
gateways and may be traced along the southern front 
of the inner gate-house. 'The beasts are arranged in 
such a way that to any one entering the city they 
would appear as though advancing to meet him. In 
the accompanying diagram , 1 which gives the ground-plan 


1 Fig. 1(>. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 55 

of the gate in outline, the arrows indicate the positions 
of beasts that are still in place upon the walls, and 
the head of each arrow points in the direction that 
animal faces. It will be noticed that along most of 
the walls running north and south the beasts face 
northwards, while on the transverse walls they face 
inwards towards the centre. One end-wall in chamber 
B is preserved, and there, for the sake of symmetry, 
the two animals face each other, advancing from oppo- 
site directions. It has been calculated that at least 
five hundred and seventy-five of these creatures were 
represented on the walls and towers of the gateway. 
Some of the walls, with their successive tiers of beasts, 
are still standing to a height of twelve metres. The 
two eastern towers of the outer gate-house are the 
best preserved, and even in their present condition 
they convey some idea of the former magnificence 
of the building. . 

In the greater part of the structure that still remains 
in place, it is apparent that the brickwork was very 
roughly finished, and that the bitumen t employed as 
mortar has been left where it has oozed out between the 
courses. The explanation is that the portions of the 
gateway which still stand are really foundations of 
the building, and were always intended to be buried 
below the pavement level. It is clear that the height 
of the road-way was constantly raised while the building 
of*the gate was in progress, and there are traces of two 
temporary pavements 1 afterwards filled in when the final 
pavement-level 2 was reached . 3 The visible portion of 
the gate above the last pavement has been entirely de- 
stroyed, but among its debris were found thousands of 
fragments of the same two animals, but in enamelled 
brick of brilliant colouring, white and yellow against a 

1 Fig. 15, a and b. 2 Fig 15, r. # 

3 The adornment of the gale’s foundations, as well as ils upper structure, 
with reliefs, may in part be explained by their temporary use in flanking the 
roadway during construction. Hut. the decoration of sacred buildings was 
not intended merely ior the purpose of artistic display. It had a deeper 
significance, based on t he belief that the use of sacred emblems ensured the 
protection of their tutelary deities. And this perhaps offers the best explana- 
tion of the presence of the Weather god’s Hull, and of Marduk s Dragon, upon 
the foundation-walls of the building. T he lion, Ishtar’s own emblem in her 
character as the goddess of war, was employed, as wo shall see (^cf. p. 50), 
upon the two walls leading to her gate. 



56 


HJSTORY OF BABYLON 


blue ground. Some of these have been laboriously 
pieced together in Berlin, and specimens are now 
exhibited in the Kaiser Friedrich Museum and in the 
Imperial Ottoman Museum at Constantinople. Only 



Fig. 17. 

ENAMELLED FRAGMENT OF THE I8HTAR GATE STILL IN POSITION. 

Tho fragment, which was the highest portion of the gate preserved, is from 
the cast side of the second doorway of tho outer gate ; cf. Figs. 14 and 15, No. 2. 
It stands just below the final pavement-lovei, cmd only the upper portion, is 
enamolled. 

one fragment of an enamelled portion of the wall was 
found in place , 1 and that was below the final pavement. 
It shows the legs of a bull above a band of rosettes 
with yellow centres . 2 

1 Sec Fig. 15 ; its position is indicated in the southern doorway (2) of the 
outer gate-house. This was the first part of the gateway to he discovered, as 
it stands higher than the rest. 

- See Fig. J7. 




THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 57 

The delicate modelling of the figures is to some 
extent obscured in the foundation specimens, but the 
imperfections there visible are entirely absent from the 
enamelled series. An examination of the latter shows 
that the bricks were separately moulded, and, before 
the process of enamelling, were burnt in the usual way. 
The contours of the figures were then outlined in black 
with a vitreous paste, the surfaces so defined being 
afterwards filled in with coloured liquid enamels. The 
paste of the black outlines and the coloured enamels 
themselves had evidently the same fusing point, for 

Fig. 18. 

PLAN OF THIS LATER DEFENCES OF TIIE 
CITADEL UPON THE NORTH, SHOWING THE 
WALLS WITH*THE LION FRIEZE AND THE 
ISHTAll GATE. 

A : Sacred Way. B, B ; Walls with Lion 
Frieze flanking the Sacred Way. 0: Ishtar 
Gate. .D : North-east corner of Palace. 

E : Temple of Ninmakh. F : E?ont wall of 
Northern Citadel. G : North wall of Northern 
Citadel. H : North wall the Principal 
Citadel. J : Broad Canal, fod from the 
Euphrates, to supply the Principal Citadel. 

K : Old wall of the • Principal Citadel. 

L, M : Moat- walls supporting dam, over 
which the roadway passed ; that on the oast 
side has not yet been excavated. N : East- 
ward extension of north wall of Northern 
Citadel. P: Stair-case, or ramps, ascending 
to roadway. K : Eastward extension of wall 
of Principal Citadel. S : South wall of 
eastern outworks. T, U, V : Ends of trans- 
versp walls in Principal Citadel. Y : River- 
side embankment <of the Persian period. 

Z^: Crude brick walls with doorways, form- 
ing a temporary gatoway, fired in bolow 
latost pavement. N.B. —The two arrows 
denote the direction in which tho lions arc represented as advancing in the 
frieze. 

when fired they have sometimes shaded off into one 
another, giving a softness and a pleasing variety of tone 
to the composition. 1 It should be added that the 
enamelled beasts, like those in plain brick, are in slight 
relief, the same moulds having been employed for both. 

Before the Neo- Babylonian period the Ishtar Gate 
had defended the northern entrance to the city, and was 
probably a massive structure of unburnt brick without 

1 The same process was employed for the Lion hrieze to the north of the 
gateway ; see below, p. 09. 





58 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


external decoration. But, with the building of the outer 
city- wall, it stood in the second line of defence. And as 
Nebuchadnezzar extended the fortifications of the Cita- 
del itself upon the northern side, it lost still more of its 
strategic importance, and from its interior position 
became a fit subject for the decorator’s art. The whole 
course of the roadway through these exterior defences 
he flanked with mighty walls, seven metres thick, 
extending from the gate northwards to the outermost 
wall and moat . 1 Their great strength was dictated by 


_JI I 


X 


□c 


jn 


ZUf 


rjms&zrrTD _ J M 
LJH _ H\-. A\- 




ICSC 

0&&1K jr 


J 


JLa© 



Fig. 19. 


LION FROM THE FRIEZE OF T1IE KACREI' WAY TO THK NORTH OK TIIE 
ISHTAlt GATT . 


the fact that, should an enemy penetrate the outer city- 
wall, he would have to pass between them, under the 
garrison’s fire, to reach the citrfdel-gate. But these, like 
the gate itself, formed a secondary or interior defence, 
and so, like it, were elaborately decorated. The side of 
each wall facing the roadway was adorned with a long 
frieze of lions, in low relief and brilliantly enamelled, 

1 See Fig. 18, B, B. The fortified areas to the west of the roadway, whjeh 
Nebuchadnezzar built out as direct extensions of the Southern Citadel upon 
its north side, are still in course of excavation. They haVc been christened 
the “Vrincipal Citadel” and the “Northern Citadel” of the Kasr. The 
most interesting- construction yet recovered there is a broad canal (Fig. 18, J), 
to the north of the palace-area of the Principal Citadel ; this w r as evidently 
left uncovered, and it must have drawn its water-supply from the Euphrates 
through grated openings in the western wall. To the east of the roadway 
lines of defence were thrown out corresponding to those of the two later 
citadels. The foundations of their eastern wall, approximately parallel to the 
roadway, have been uncovered ; but the whole of this area was destroyed by 
the Euphrates when it changed its course, and only the main fortification-walla 
can now be traced below the deposit of silt. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 59 

which were represented advancing southwards towards 
the Ishtar Gate. The surface of each wall was broken 
up into panels by a series of slightly projecting towers, 
each panel probably containing two lions, while the 
plinth below the Lion Frieze was decorated with rosettes. 
There appear to have been sixty lions along each wall. 
Some were in white enamel with yellow manes, while 
others were in yellow and had red manes , 1 and they 
stood out against a light or dark blue ground. Leading 
as they did to the bulls and dragons of the gateway, we 
can realize in some degree the effect produced upon a 
stranger entering the inner city of Babylon for the first 
time. 

Such a stranger, passing within the Ishtar Gate, 
would have ‘been struck with wonder at the broad 
Procession Street , 2 which ran its long course straight 
through the city from north to south, with the great 
temples ranged on either hand. Its foundation of burnt . 
brick covered with bitumen is still preserved, upon 
which, to the south yf the gateway, rested a pavement 
of massive flags, the centre of fine hard limestone, the 
sides of red breccia veined with white. In inscriptions 
upon the edges of these paving slabs, formerly hidden 
by their asphalt mortar, Nebuchadnezzar boasts that he 
paved the street of Babylon for the procession of the 
great lord Marduk, to whom he prays for eternal life . 3 
The slabs that are still in place are polished with hard 
use, .but, unlike the pavements of Pompeii, show no 
ruts or indentations such as we might have expected 
from the chariots of the later period. It is possible 
that, in view of its sacred character, the use of the road 
was l-estrictcd to foot passengers and beasts of burden, 
except when the king and his retinue passed along it 
.through the city. And in any case, not counting 


1 The red enamel lias decomposed and is now preen. All the lions, like 
the enamelled beasts of the Ishtar Gate, were found in fragments. 

2 Compare the plan on p. ilO, Fig. U, where the Procession street, in its 
course past the Citadel, is lettered G. 

3 Cf. Koldewey, “ Die Pflastersteine von Aiburschabu in Babylon,” 
pp. 4 ff. The limestone is termed shadu, or “ mountain-stone,” and Koldevvey 
suggests that it was quarried in the neighbourhood of Hit on the Euphrates. 
Hie quarries from which the turmina-banda , or breccia, was obtained have 
not yet been identified. 



GO HISTORY OF BABYLON 

chariots of war and state, there was probably very little 
wheeled traffic in Babylonia at any time. 

When, clear of the citadel the road descends by 
a gradual slope to the level of the plain, and preserving 
the same breadth, passes to the right of the temple 
dedicated to Ishtar of Akkad . 1 As it continues south- 
ward it is flanked at a little distance on the east by tfee 
streets of private houses, whose foundations have been 
uncovered in the Merkes mound ; 2 and on the west side 
it runs close under the huge peribolos of E-temen-anki, 
the Tower of Babylon . 3 As far as the main gate of 
E-temen-anki 4 its foundation is laid in burnt-brick, 
over which was an upper paving completely formed of 
breccia. Thb inscription upon the slabs corresponds to 
that on the breccia paving-stones opposite the citadel ; 
but they have evidently been re-used from an earlier 
pavement of Sennacherib, whose name some of them 
. bear upon the underside. This earlier pavement of 
Babylon’s Sacred Way must have been laid by Ihat 
monarch before he reversed his conciliatory policy toward 
the southern kingdom. At the south-east corner of 
the peribolos the road turns at a right angle and run- 
ning between the peribolos and E-sagila, the great 
temple of the city-god, passes through a gate in the 
river- wall built by Nabonidus, and so over the Euphrates 
bridge before turning southward again in the direction 
of Borsippa . 6 This branch road between the Tower of 
Babylon and E-sagila B is undoubtedly the continuation . 
of the procession-street. For not only was it the way 
of approach to Marduk’s temple, but its course has been 
definitely traced by excavation. But there can be no 
doubt that the upper portion of t he road, running north* 
and south through the city, was continued in a straight 
line from the point where the Sacred Way branched ' 5 
off. This would have conducted an important stream 

1 The course of the Procession Street may he followed in the plan on 
j). S3, Fig. 31 ; it is there marked A. The Temple of Ishtar of Akkad is 
lettered II. 

2 Fig. 30, G. 

3 Fig. 30, E, F ; compare also Fig. 27 on p. 74, with the same lettering. 

4 Fig. 27, the gate numbered 2. 

f> See Fig. 27, where the course of the road is lettered A, as in Fig. 30. 

9 Fig. 27, B and ( '. 





THE CITY ANp ITS REMAINS „ 61 

of traffic to the main gate in the soutljert}. city-wall, 
passing bn its Way between the templet dedicated to 
the gqd Ninib and to another deity not yet identified . 1 

Apart from the royal palaces, the five temples of 
Babylon were the principal buildings within the city, 
and their excavation has thrown an entirely new light 
upon our ideas of the religious architecture of the 
country. The ground-plans of four of them have now 
been ascertained in their entirety, and we are conse- 
quently in a position to form some idea of the general 
principles upon which such buildings were arranged. 
The first to be excavated was the little temple E-makh, 
dedicated to the goddess Ninmakh, which, as we have 
. already seen, was built on the citadel itself, in the 
north-east comer of the open space to the south of the 
Ishtar Gateway. Its principal facade faces the north- 
west, and, since the eastern entrance of the Ishtar Gate 
opens just opposite the corner of the temple, a wall* 
with a doorway in it was thrown across, spanning the 
passage between teirtple and fortification . 2 The only 
entrance to the temple was in the centre of .the fagade ; 
and in the passage-way immediately in front of it, sur- 
rounded by a pavement of burnt-brick, is a small crude- 
brick altar . 3 It is an interesting fact that the only other 
altar yet found in Babylon is also of crude brick and 
occupies precisely the same position, outside a temple 
and ^immediately opposite its main entrance ; 4 while in 
a third temple, though tbe altar itself has disappeared, 
the paved area which surrounded it is still visible . 6 We 
may therefore conclude that this represents the normal 
position for the altar in the Babylonian cult ; and it fully 
substantiates the statement of Herodotus that the two 
altars of Belus were outside his temple . 6 One of these, 

* he* tells us, was of s’olid gold, on which it was only 
lawful to offer 'sucklings ; the other was a common altar 
(doubtless of crude brick) but of great size, on which 

1 See above, p. 23, Fig. 3, where the position of the two temples is 
indicated by the letters N and M. The line of the city-wall along part of the 
south side iR indicated by the mounds lettered B. 

a For the position of the temple in relation to the Ishtar Gate, see above, 
p. 30, Fig. 6, where the temple is lettered J, and the Ishtar Gate H. 

8 See p. 64, Fig. 20, d. Compare also the reconstruction in Fig. 21. 

4 See below, p. 71. 6 Sue below, p. 69. 6 I., 183. 



62 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

t 

full-grown animals* were sacrificed. It was also on the 
great altar that the Chaldeans burnt the frankincense, 
which, according to Herodotus, was offered to the 
amount of a thousand talents’ weight every year at 
the festival of the god. 

It may further be noted that this exterior position 
of the altar corresponds to Hebrew usage, according to 
which the main altar was erected in the outer court in 
front of the temple proper. Thus Solomon’s brazen 
altar, which under Phoenician influence took the place 
of earlier altars of earth or unhewn stone,' stood before 
the temple.* The altar within the Hebrew temple was 
of cedar-wood , 1 * 3 and it was clearly not a permanent 
structure embedded in the pavement, for Ezekiel refers 
to it as a “table,” and states that it “ was of wood .” 4 * 
It was more in the nature of a table for offerings, and 
it may be inferred that in earlier times it served as the 
•table upon which the shewbread was placed before 
Yahwfi . 6 The complete absence of any trace of a per- 
manent altar within the Babylonian temples can only 
be due to q similar practice ; the altars or tables within 
the shrines must have been light wooden structures, and 
they were probably carried off or burnt when the temples 
were destroyed. There is of course no need to regard 
this resemblance as due to direct cultural influence or 
borrowing. But we may undoubtedly conclude that 
we here have an example of parallelism in religious 
ritual between two races of* the same Semitic stock. 
What the Sumerian practice was in this respect we 
have as yet no means of ascertaining; but in such 
details of cult it is quite possible that the Semitic 
Babylonians substituted their own traditional usages for 
any other they may have found in the country of their 
adoption. 

Jhe temple of Ninmakh itself, like all the others in 
Babylon, was built of crude brick, and though its walls 
were covered with a thin plaster or wash of lime, only 

1 (’ f. Exodus, xx., 24-20. 2 Cf. I. Kings, viii.,64. 

3 1. Kings, vi., 20. 4 Ezekiel, xli., 22. 

L Cf. I. Samuel, G [7]. For a discussion of the evidence relating to the 

Hebrew practices, see especially the article “ Altar," by W. E. Addis, in the 

“ Encyclopaedia Biblica,” J., Cols. 1215 ff. 



THE CITt AND ITS REMAINS 63 

the simplest form of decoration in black and white was 
attempted, and that very sparingly . 1 The fact that the 
practice of building in mud-brick should have continued 
at a time when kiln-burnt and enamelled brick was 
lavished on the royal palaces, is probably to be ex- 
plained as a result of religious conservatism. The 
architectural design does not differ in essentials from 
that employed for buildings of a military character. It 
will be seen that the long exterior walls of E-makh 
resemble those of a fortification, their surface being 
broken up by slightly projecting towers set at regular 
intervals . 2 Larger rectangular towers flank the gate- 
way, and two others, diminishing in size and probably 
also in height, are ranged on either side of them. The 
vertical grooves, which traverse the exterior faces of the 
towers from top to bottom, constitute a characteristic 
form of temple embellishment, which is never found on 
buildings of a secular character. They may be either* 
plain rectangular grooves, or more usually, as in E nnakh, 
are stepped when viewed in section . 3 

In all the important doorways of the temples founda- 
tion-deposits were buried in little niches or bo’xes, formed 
of six bricks placed together and hidden below the level 
of the pavement. The deposits found in place are 
generally fashioned of baked clay, and that of most 
common occurrence is a small figure of the god Pap- 
sukal. One of those in Ninmakh’s temple was in the 
form* of a bird, no doubt sacred to tlje goddess. There 
is clear evidence that the object of their burial was to 
ensure the safety of the entrance both from spiritual 
and from human foes. In addition to this magical pro- 
tection the entrance was further secured by double doors, 
their pivots shod with bronze and turning in massive 
•stone sockets. The ordinary method of fastening such 
doors by bolts was supplemented in the case of E-makh 
by a beam propped against the doors and with its lower 
end fitting into a socket in the pavement. Since the 


1 See below, p. 09 f. 

* See p. 05, Fig. 21. 

9 In some temples, as in E-zida, the temple of Nabti at Borsippa, and in 
the earliest remains of E-sagila (see below, pp. 71 ff.)> semicircular tillets take 
the place of sunken grooves. 



G4 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 

temple was within the citadel fortifications, the possi- 
bility was foreseen that it might have to be defended 
from assault like the secular buildings in its immediate 
neighbourhood. 

Passing through the entrance-chamber of E-makh, 
from which opens a service-room lor the use of the 


ma 



f r 'Jm 

l 


Pig, 20. 

G BOUND-PI. AN OF E-MAKII. 

A: Open Court. B: Ante-chamber to Shrine. C: Shrine. E: Entrance- 
chamber, or Vestibule, to temple, b : Service-room for Ante-chamber, c : Service- 
room for Shrine, d : Crude-brick altar, e : Well. «: Dais, or postament, for 
statue of Ninmakh. 1 : Porters’ room. 2-4 : Prjests' apartments or Store-rooms. 
5, 6, 9, 10: Chambers giving access to narrow passages. 7, 8, 11, 12: Narrow 
passages, possibly containing stairways or ramps to roof, 
e [After Andrae.j 

temple-guardians, one enters a large open court, 1 sur- 
rounded on all sides by doorways leading to priests’ 
apartments and store-chambers and to the shrine. The 
latter is on the south-east side, facing the entrance to 

1 Fig. 20, A. The description may be followed by means of the index 
letters and figures on the plan, which are explained below it. 




THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 65 


the court, and, like the main gateway of the temple, 
the fa£ade of the shrine and the flanking towers of its 
doorway were adorned with stepped grooves. The 
shrine itself is approached through an ante-chamber, 
and each has a small service-apartment opening out 
from it to the left. Against the back wall of the 
shrine, immediately opposite the doors, stood the cult 
image of the goddess, visible from the open court ; this 
has disappeared, but the foundations of the low dais or 
postament, on which it stood, are still in place. 

The long narrow passage behind the shrine 1 2 was 



Fia. 21. 

CO\ T JECTUL\L BESTO RATION OF K-MAKH, THE TEMPLE OF THE GODDESS NINMAKII. 

The view is taken from the north. The plain finish to the tops of walls and 
towers is in accordance with ono theory of reconstruction. The connecting wall 
between tbo temple and tho east wing of the Ishtar Gate is omitted to simplify 
the drawing. 

[Aft#r Andrae.] • 


thought at first by its discoverer to have served a secret 
purpose of the priesthood. It was suggested that it 
might have given access to a concealed opening in the 
back wall of the shrine, behind the image of the goddess, 
whence oracles could* have been given forth with her 
authority. Bjut there is a precisely similar passage 
along the north-east wall ; and we may probably accept 
the more prosaic explanation that they contained the 
ramps or stairways that led up to the flat roof, though 
why two should have been required, both at the same 
end of the building, is not clear. a The precise use of 

1 In Fig. 20 the passage is numbered 11 and 12. 

2 They are so narrow that they can hardly have served as store-chambers. 

F 




66 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

the other chambers opening from the court cannot be 
identified with any certainty, as nothing was found in 
them to indicate whether they served as apartments 
for the priesthood or as magazines for temple- stores. 
Beyond a number of votive terracotta figures, no cult 
object was discovered. But around the dais for the 
image of the goddess, the well in the courtyard for 
lustral water, and the small crude-brick altar before the 
temple entrance, it is possible to picture in imagination 
some of the rites to which reference is made in the 
Babylonian religious texts. 

As we have already seen was the case with the 
palace-buildings, the upper structure of all the temples 
has been completely destroyed, so that it. is not now 
certain how the tops of walls and towers were finished 
off. In the conjectural restoration of Ninmakh’s 
temple 1 the upper portions are left perfectly plain. 
'And this represents one theory ©f reconstruction. But 
it is alko possible that the walls were crowned with the 
stepped battlements of military architecture. In the 
restoration of Assyrian buildings, both secular and 
religious, great assistance has been obtained from the 
sculptured bas-reliefs that lined the palace walls. For 
the scenes upon them include many representations of 
buildings, and, when due allowance has been made for 
the conventions employed, a considerable degree of 
certainty may be attained with their help in picturing 
the external appearance of buildings of which only the 
lower courses of the walls now remain. The scarcity 
of stone in Babylonia, and the consequent absence of 
mural reliefs, have deprived us of this source of informa- 
tion in the case of the southern kingdom. The only 
direct evidence on the point that has been forth- 
coming consists of a design stamped in outline upon a 
rectangular gold plaque, found with other fragments of 
gold and jewellery in the remains of a sumptuous burial 
within the structure of Nabopolassar’s palace . 2 The 
period of the burial is certain, for the grave in which 
the great pottery sarcophagus was placed had been 

1 See Fig. 21. 

* The grave was hollowed out of the massive brickwork of the outer wall, 
in the extreme north-west corner of the palace. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 67 


closed with bricks of Nebuchadnezzar, who afterwards 
built his strengthening wall against it. It must there- 
fore date from the earlier part of his reign, and Dr. 
Koldewey makes the suggestion that it was perhaps the 
tomb of Nabopolassar himself. 1 However that may be, 
the grave is certainly of the early Neo-Babylonian 
period, and the architectural design upon the gold 
plaque may be taken as good evidence for that time. 

The plaque formed the principal decoration in a 
chain bracelet, small rings passing through the holes at 


its four comers and serving 
links of the chain. On it 
the jeweller has represented 
a gate with, an arched door- 
way, flanked by towers, 
which rise above the walls of 
the main building. Each 
tower is surmounted • by a 
projecting upper structure, 
pierced with small • circular 
loopholes, and both towers 
and walls are crowned with 
triangular battlements. The 
latter are obviously intended 
to be stepped, the engraver 
not having sufficient space 
to represent this detail in a 
design on so small a se*de. 
The outline is probably that 
of a fortified city-gate, and it 
fully justifies the adoption of 


to attach it to the larger 



Fig. 22. 

GOLD Fl-AQUK, WITH ARCHITECTURAL 
DESIGN, FROM A NEO-BABYLONIAN 
BURIAL. 

The engraving on the plaque 
shows a city-gate with flanking 
towers and stopped battlements. 
[Enlargement after photo, by 
Koldowoy.] 

the stepped battlement in 


the reconstruction of military buildings of the period. 


Whether the temples were furnished in the same manner, 
fof purely decorative* purposes, is not so clear. Some 
idea of the appearance of one, restored on this alternative 
hypothesis, may be gathered from the elevation of the 
unidentified temple known as “ Z,” which is given in 
Fig. 24. 


It is important that the ground-plans of no less than 
four of the temples in Babylon have been recovered, for 
it will be seen that the main features, already noted in 


1 Cf. “Babylon,” p. 118 f. ; Engl, ed., p. 118 f. 




68 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

Ninmakh’s temple, are always repeated.* In each the 
temple buildings are arranged around an open court, to 
which access is given through one or more entrances 
with vestibules. The doorways to temple and to shrine 
are flanked by grooved towers, while within the shrine 
itself the cult-statue stood on a low dais, visible from 
the court. Yet with this general similarity, all combine 



A1 : Main Court of temple. A2, A3 : Subsidiary Courts. B : Ante-ch‘ambor 
to Shrine. C : Shrine. El, E2, E3 : Entrance-chambers, or Vestibules, to tomple. 
cl, c2, c3 : Scrvico-rooms for Shrine, s : Dais, or postament, for cult-statue. 
1-3 : Porters' rooms. 4, 5 : Chambers with access to narrow passage, possibly 
containing stairway or ramp to roof. 6, 7 .- Priests’ apartments or store-rooms. 
8, 9 : Entranco-chambors to residential quarters. 10 15 : Quarters for resident 
priesthood around N.-W. Court. 16 : Entrance-chamber to Inner Court. 17-21 ; 
Quarters for resident priesthood around Inner Court. 

[After Andrae.] 

t 

special features of their own. The temple “ Z,” for 
example, is exactly rectangular in plan, and is divided 
into two distinct parts, the object of which may be 
readily surmised. The larger and eastern portion, 
opening on the great court, was obviously devoted to 
the service of the deity. For there, on the south side, 

1 In the ground-plans, which are here reproduced, the same lettering is 
employed, as far as they correspond, for the principal features of each building. 




THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 69 

is the shrine and its ante-chamber, with the dais for the 
cult-image against the south wall. The western portion 
is grouped around two smaller courts, and, as its arrange- 
ment resembles that of a private dwelling-house, we may 
regard it as the quarters of the resident priesthood. 
Other notable features are the three service-chambers 
to the shrine, and the three separate entrances to the 
temple itself, each with its own vestibule and porters’ 
room. But there is only one narrow passage, extending 
partly behind the shrine and containing, as suggested, 
a ramp or stairway to the roof. There was probably 
an altar before the northern gate, as shown in the 



Fig. 24. 

CONJECTURAL RESTORATION OF THE UNIDENTIFIED TEMPLE KNOWN AS “ Z.” 

The view is taken from a point immediately opposite the north corner of the 
temple. The stepped battlements on walls and towers, borrowed from military 
architecture, are here adopted in accordance with ono theory of reconstruction. 

[After Andr§e and Koldewdy.] 

restoration, but only the paved area on which it stood 
was found to be still in place. 

In the temples dedicated to Ishtar of Akkad and to 
the god Ninib the shrines are on the west side of the 
gr6at court, instead of on the south as in those we 
have already ^examined. Thus it would seem there 
was no special position for the shrine, though the 
temples themselves are generally built with their 
corners directed approximately to the cardinal points. 1 
In the temple of Ishtar unmistakable traces have been 
noted of a simple form of mural decoration that 

1 It will be noticed that this orientation is least apparent in E-sagila (see 
below, p. 74, Fig. 127), and in the temple of Ishtar of Akkad (Fig. 25). 





70 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

appears to have been employed in all the temples of 
Babylon. While the walls in general were coloured 
dead white with a thin gypsum wash, certain of the 
more prominent parts, such as the main entrance, the 
doorway leading to the shrine and the niche behind 
the statue of the goddess, were washed over with 
black asphalt in solution, each blackened surface being 
decorated near its edge with white strips or line-borders. 
The contrast in colour presented by this black and white 



I. . .. . 1? I'M 


Fig. 25 . 

GROUND-FLAN OF THE TEMFLE OF I8HTAR OF AKKAD. 

A : Open Court. B : Ante-chamber to Shrine. C : Shrine. El, E2 : Entrance- 
chambers, or Vestibules, to temple. 51, 52 , 53 : Service-rooms for Ante-chambor. 
cl : Service-room for Shrine, e : Well, s? Position of statue of Ishtar, on dais 
or postament against niche in back-wall of Shrine. 1-4 : Priests’ apartments or 
store-rooms. 5-7 : Porters’ rooms. 8 : Entrance-chamber to small inner court. 
9 : Small open court in which were two circular stores or granaries. 10 14 : 
Chambers, probably used as store-rooms, giving access to narrow passage, which 
possibly contained stairway or ramp to roof. 

[After lieuther.] 

decoration must have been startling in its effect ; no 
doubt, like the crude-brick material of th« buildings, it 
was* an inheritance from earlier times, and owed its 
retention to its traditional religious significance. 

In the temple of Ninib two additional shrines flank 
the principal one, each having its own entrance and a 
dais or postament for a statue. It is probable that the 
side shrines were devoted to the worship of subsidiary 
deities connected in some way with Ninib, for the 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 71 

temple as a whole was dedicated solely to him. This 
we learn from Nabopolassar’s foundation-cylinders, 
buried below the pavement of the shrine, which relate 
how the king erected the building in his honour, on an 
earlier foundation, after he had kept back the foot of 



Eiu. 26. 

GKOUND-FLAN OF THE TEMFLE OF NINIB. 

X : Open Court. C : Shrine of ^inib. NC, SG : Subsidiary shrines for other 
deities, s, s, s : Postamcms for statues of Ninib and the other deitios, set against 
niches in the wall oxactly opposite the entrances. El, E2, E3 : Entrance- 
chambers or Vestibules, to temple, d : Crude-brick altar. 1, 2, 6, 7 : Porters’ 
rooms. 3-6, 11, 12 : Priests’ apartments or store-rooms. 10: Small open court. 
8, 9 : Chambers giving access to narrow passage behind the shrines, which 
possibly contained stairway or ramp to roof. 

[After Andrae.] 

the Assyrian from the land of Akkad and had thrown 
off his heavy yoke . 1 It was fitting that he should, have 
marked his gratitude in this way to the god of war. 

The most interesting temple of Babylon is naturally 
that dedicated to the worship of the city-god. This 
was the famous E-sagila, a great part of which still lies 
buried some twenty-one metres below the surface of 

1 Cf. Weissbacli, “ Babylunisehe Miscellen,” p. 20 f., 11. 17-21. 





72 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

Tell ‘Amran . 1 Its main portion, lying to the west, is 
practically square in ground-plan, andiike the smaller' 
temples of the city, it consists of chambers grouped 
around an open court ; but their arrangement here is‘ 
far more symmetrical . 3 There was a great gateway in 
the centre of each side, where in Neriglissar’s time stood 
the eight bronze serpents, a pair of them beside each 
entrance . 3 The eastern gate was no doubt the principal 
one, as it gives access to the inner court through a 
single great vestibule or entrance-chamber, in striking 
contrast to the smaller vestibules on the north and 
south sides, from which the court can be reached only 
through side-corridors . 4 Around the great court within, 
the temple doorways and towers are arranged sym- 
metrically. The shrine of Marduk lay on its western 
side, as may be inferred from the facade and towered 
entrance. This was the E-kua of the inscriptions, which 
Nebuchadnezzar states he made ^o shine like the sun, 
coating* its walls with gold as though with gypsum- 
plaster, a phrase which recalls thq, mud and gypsum 
washes of the other temples. “ The best of my cedars,” 
he says, “that I brought from Lebanon, the noble 
forest, I sought out for the roofing of Ekua, [Marduk ’s] 
lordly chamber ; the mighty cedars I covered with 
gleaming gold for the roofing of Ekua .” 6 The lavish 
employment of gold in the temple’s decoration is 
attested by Herodotus, who states that in this, “the 
lower temple ,” 6 was a great seated figure of Zeus, 
which, like the throne, the dais, and the table before it, 
was fashioned of gold, the metal weighing altogether 
eight hundred talents . 7 

1 See above, p. 23, Fig-. 3, E. * See p. 74, Fig. 27, C. 

* See Rawlinson, “Cun. Inacr. West. Asia/’ I., pi. (57, Col. I., 11. 21 ff., 
and cf. Bezold in Schrader’s “Keilins. Bibl.," IIJ., ii., p. 72 f., and Langdon, 
“Neubab. Konigsinschriften,” p. 210 f. 

4 The main entrance to the temple was approached th rough an annex 
on the oast (Fig. 27, D), of which the external walls only have been traced 
by tunnelling, while its interior remains still unexplored. It will be noted in 
the plan that the main entrance to the annex is again on the east side, marked 
by a recess in the enclosing wall, almost opposite the main entrance to the 
temple. The approach to the annex was doubtless by a branch of the 
Procession Street, which must have left the principal roadway opposite 
entrance No. 4 of the Peribolos (see Fig. 27). 

6 Cf. “East India House Inscr.,” Col. II., 11. 43 ff., and Col. III., 11. 21 ff. 

8 The Ktirw yr)6s , to distinguish it from that on the temple-tower 

7 I.. 183. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 73 

' ■> *' * 

The identification of the temple was rendered certain^ 
by the discovery of inscribed bricks in earlier pavements, 
below those of Nebuchadnezzar. Inscriptions Stamped 
upon bricks from two pavements of Ashur-bani-pal 
record that this Assyrian king made “ bricks of E-sagila 
and E-temen-anki,” while on an older one which he 
re-used, stamped with the name of Esarhaddon, it is 
definitely stated that it formed part of the paving of 
E-sagila . 1 2 These pavements were reached by means of 
an open excavation in Tell ‘Amran, extending some 
forty metres each way. It took no less than eight 
months to remove the soil to the pavement level, and it 
is estimated that some thirty thousand cubic metres of 
earth were carted away in the course of the work. It 
is not surprising, therefore, that the chambers on the 
west side of the court, including the shrine of Marduk, 
still remain covered by the mound. A subsidiary 
shrine, on the north side of the court, has been cleared, 
and it would be a spot of considerable interest 
if, as Dr. Koldewey .suggests, it was dedicated to Ea. 
For in the Hellenistic period Ea was identified with 
Serapis, and should this prove to have been his 
sanctuary, it was here that Alexander’s generals 
repaired during his illness, when they enquired of the 
god whether he should be carried thither to be 
healed.* 

To the north of Marduk’s temple rose its ziggurat, 
the Tower of Babel, knowji to Babylonians of all ages 
as E-temen-anki, “ The House of the Foundation-stone 
of Heaven and Earth.” It stood within its Peribolos 
or sacred precincts, marked now by the flat area or 
plain which the local Arabs call Sakhn, “the pan .” 3 
The precincts of the tower were surrounded by an 
enclosing wall, decorated with innumerable grooved 
towers, along the east and south sides of which Jdie 
track of the Sacred Way may still be followed . 4 On "the 
inner side of the wall, in its whole circuit, stretched a 
vast extent of buildings, all devoted to the cult of the 

1 Cf. Koldewey, “Babylon,” p. 202 f. ; Engl. ed.,p. 207. 

2 Of. Koldewey, “ Die Tempel von Babylon und Borsippa,” p. 43. 

8 See above, p. 23, Fig. 3, Q. 

4 Marked A, A, A in Fig. 27. 



74 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

city-god, and forming, in the phrase of their discoverer, 
a veritable Vatican of Babylon . 1 

The area so enclosed forms approximately a square, 



Fia. 27. 


GROUND-PLAN OF E-TKMKN-ANKI AND E-SAGILA. 

A : Sacred Wav, or Procession Street. B : E-tomon-anki, the Ziggurat or 
Tomplo-tower of Babylon. C : E-sagila, the temple of Marduk. B : Eastern 
Annex to E-sagila. E : Northern Court of th» Peribolos or sacred precincts. 
E : Main Court. (1 : Western Court. II, J : Temple-magazines. K : Arakhtu- 
wall. L : Nebuchadnezzar’s wall. M : Kiver-wall of Nabonidus. N : Gateway 
in fti*or-wall. J* : Stone piers of Bridge over the Euphrates. 1-12 : Entrances 
to the Peribolos, No. 2 marking the position of the Main Entranco. 

[After Wotzel.] 


and is cut up by cross-walls into three separate sections 


1 Ct\ Koldewey, “Babylon,” p. 185; Engl, ed., p. 100. Some idea of the 
probable appearance of the immense enclosure may be gathered from the 
reconstruction in Fig. 28. 




THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 75 

of unequal size. Within the largest of the great courts 1 
stood the temple-tower , 2 its core constructed of unburnt 
brick but enclosed with a burnt brick facing . 3 In the 
reconstruction a single stairway is shown projecting 
from the southern side, and giving access to the first 
stage or story of the tower. But it has lately been 
ascertained that three separate stairways ascended the 
tower on the south side, the two outer ones being built 
against its south-east and south-west corners, and being 



Fia. 28. 

CONJECTURAL RECONSTRUCTION OP E-TEMEN-ANKI AND E-SAGILA, 


The form of the Temple-tower within the Peribolos is here restored in accord- 
ance with Dr, Koldewey’s theory that it consisted of a single stage or story, on 
which the upper Temple of Marduk fested. According to an alternative inter- 
pretation uf Herodotus, the upper Temple would have formod the last of eight 
receding towers or stages. It will be noted that the two flanking stairways, 
recently discovered on tho south side of the tower, are here not shown. 

[After Andrao.] 

flanked on their outer sides by stepped walls, which 
formed a solid breastwork or protection for any one 
ascending them . 4 

1 Fig. 27, F. 2 Fig. 27, B. 

8 During the recent excavation of the tower the outer facing of burnt 
brick has been uncovered along the north side, and it was seen to have been 
decorated witli twelve tower- like projections. A considerable fragment was 
also found on the west side ; and the exterior measurement of both these sides 
of the tower was ascertained to be ninety-one metres. The crude-brick core 
measures about sixty-one metres along its north front. See “Mitteil. dor 
Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft/’ No. 53 (April, 11)14), p. 18. 

4 The outer stairways were eight metres in breadth, and sixteen steps are 




76 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


The buildings within the precincts were evidently 
not temples, as they present none of their characteristic 
features, such as the shrine or the towered facade, and 
any theory as to their use must be based on pure con- 
jecture. Judging solely by their ground-plans, it would 
appear that the two great buildings on the east side, 
consisting of a long series of narrow chambers ranged 
around open courts, were probably the magazines and 
store-chambers. The buildings on the south side re- 
semble dwelling-houses, and were probably the quarters 
of the priesthood ; their huge size would not have been 
out of keeping with the privileges and dignified position 
enjoyed by those in control of the principal temple in 
the capital. The small chambers along the. walls of the 
Northern Court,* and the narrow Western Court , 3 may 
well have been used to house the thousands of pilgrims 
who doubtless flocked to Babylon to worship at the 
central shrine. No less than twelve gateways led into 
the sacred precincts, the principal entrance being on the 
east side , 4 exactly opposite the east face of the temple- 
tower. The^ breccia paving of the Sacred Way was here 
continued within the area of the precincts, along the 
centre of the open space, or deep recess, between the 
temple-magazines. The great gateway probably spanned 
the western end of this recess, thus completing the line 
of the Main Court upon that side . 6 

The most striking feature of E-temen-anki was 
naturally the temple-tower itself, which rose high above 
the surrounding buildings and must have been visible 
from all parts of the city and from some considerable 
distance beyond the walls. Its exact form has been 
the subject of some controversy. Dr. Koldewey rejects 
the current view, based upon the description of 
Herodotus , 8 that it consisted of a stepped tower in 
eight stages, with the ascent to the top ‘encircling the 
outside. It is true that the excavations have shown 
that the ascent to the first stage, at any rate, was not 


still preserved of the one in the south-west corner ; cf. “Mitteil. d. Deutsch. 
Or. -Gesells.,” No. 53, p. 19. 

1 Fig. 27 , H and J. 2 Fig. 27, K 

3 Fig. 27, G. 4 Fig. 27, Entrance No. 2. 

6 'lliis arrangement is suggested in Fig. 28. B I., 181. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 77 

of this character, consisting, as it did, of a triple stair- 
way built against one side of the tower ; 1 but, as the 
ground-plan only of the building can now be traced, 
there is nothing to indicate the form of its upper 
structure. Dr. Koldewey does not regard the evidence 
for the existence of stepped towers in Babylonia as satis- 
factory, and he appears to consider that they depend 
solely on the description of Herodotus, who, he claims, 
says nothing about stepped terraces, nor that each stage 
was smaller than the one below it. He is inclined to 
reconstruct the tower as built in a single stage, decorated 
on its face with coloured bands, and surmounted by the 
temple to which the triple-stairway would have given 
direct access This view of its reconstruction is shown 
in Fig. 28, but its author considers the problem as still 
unsettled, and suspends his judgment until the Ziggurat 
at Borsippa, the best preserved of the temple-towers, is 
excavated. • 

There, as at Babylon, we have a temple 5nd a 
separate temple-tow«r, but they both stood within the 
same peribolos or sacred enclosure, along the inner side 
of which were built series of numerous small chambers 
resembling those of E-temen-anki. A street 2 ran along 
the north-west front of the peribolos, and two gateways 3 
opened on to it from the sacred enclosure. The main 
entrance both to peribolos and temple was probably on 
the north-east side. 4 It will be noted that the plan of 
the temple 5 follows the lines of thos« already described, 
consisting of a complex of buildings ranged around one 
great court and a number of smaller ones. The shrine 
of the god Nabu stood on the south-west side of the 
Great Court, the heavily-towered facade indicating 
the entrance to its outer vestibule. While so much of 
the temple itself and of its enclosure has been cleared, the 
temple-tower *■ awaits excavation. It still rises to a 
height of no less than forty-seven metres above The 
surrounding plain, but such a mass of debris has fallen 

1 See above, p. 75- 2 See Fig. 29, G. 3 C and D. 

4 The bronze step of Nebuchadnezzar, preserved in the British Museum 

(see above, p. 27, n. 1), seems to have come from the temple entrance in the 

south-west front, facing the temple-tower. 

b Fig. 29, A. 6 Fig. 29, B. 



78 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


about its base that to clear it completely would entail 
a vast amount of labour. The mound of soil not only 
covers the open court surrounding the temple-tower, 
but extends over the inner line of chambers on the 
north-west side of the peribolos. The destruction of 
the temple and its surroundings by fire has vitrified the 
upper structure of the ziggurat, and to this fact the 
ruins owe their preservation. For the bricks are welded 



Tig. 29 . 


Q ROUND-PI. AN OF K-ZIDA AND THE TEMPLE-TOWER OF NARfl AT LORSLPrA. 

A : The templo E-zida. B : The Temple-tower of Nabfi. C, D : Gateways 
opening from the Peribolos on to the street which ran along that side of the 
sacred enclosure. E : Remains of later building. E : Chambers on south -wost 
side of Peribolos. G, G : Street running along the north west face of the 
Peribolos. 

[Aftor Koldewey.] 

• 

into a solid mass, and, since it is no longer possible to 
separate them, they offer no attractions as building- 
material and so have escaped the fate of E-temen-anki. 

It is quite possible that, when N aba’s temple- tower 
is excavated, it will throw some light upon the upper 
structure of these massive buildings. Meanwhile we 
possess a piece of evidence which should not be ignored in 
any discussion of the subject. On a boundary-stone of 
the time of Merodach-baladan I. are carved a number 




THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 79 


of emblems of the gods, including those of Marduk and 
Nabft, which are set beside each other in the second 
row. That of 1 Marduk consists of his sacred Spear-head 
supported by his dragon, that of Nabh being the Wedge 
or Stilus, also supported by a horned dragon. But 
while the other emblems are left sculptured in relief 
against the field of the stone, that of Nabh is engraved 
against a temple- tower . 1 It will be noticed that this 
rises in stages, diminishing in size and set one above the 
other. The rough engraving may well represent the 



BOUGH ENGRAVING OF A TEMl’LE-TOWER UPON # A BOUNDARY-STONE. 

The boundary- stone is of the period of Marduk-aplu-iddina, or Merodach- 
baladan I. Tho engraving represents a temple-tower, before which is a dragon 
supporting on its back an upright Wedge, the emblem of Nabft. The towor 
is represented as built in storios, or stepped stagos, set one upon the other. 

[From Brit. Mus., No. 90850.] 


outward form of Nabp’s temple-tower at Borsippa at 
the time of Merodach-baladan I. In any case, since the 
emblems on the boundary-stones are associated viith 

1 In the engraving, in order that the wedge and the dragon should stand 
out in relief, the surface of the stone has been cut away round them. This 
gives the lowest story of the tower an appearance of having arched openings 
in it. It should, of course, be solid, like the other stages of the tower, the 
apparent openings being merely due to the exigencies of the engraver ; 
cf. King, “ Boundary-Stones and Memorial-Tablets in the British Museum,” 
p. 25, n. 1. A photographic reproduction of this portion of the stone is given, 
op. cit.f PI. xli. 




80 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

temples, the on’y building it can be intended for is 
a temple-tower. It thus definitely proves the construc- 
tion of this class of building in stories or stages, which 
diminish in area as they ascend. 

Additional evidence that this was actually the form 
of the Tower of Babylon has been deduced from a tablet, 
drawn up in the Seleucid era, and purporting to give 
a detailed description and measurements of E-sagila and 
its temple-tower. A hurried description of the text 
and its contents was published by George Smith 1 before 
he started on his last journey to the east, and from that 
time the tablet was lost sight of. But some three years 
ago it was found in Paris, and it has now been made 
fully available for study . 3 It must be admitted that 
it is almost impossible at present to reconcile the 
descriptions on the tablet with the actual remains of 
E-sagila and the Peribolos that have been recovered by 
Lxcayation. The “ Great Terrace (or Court),” and the 
“Terrace (or Court) of Ishtar and Zamama,” which, 
according to the tablet, were the largest and most 
important subdivisions in the sacred area, have not been 
satisfactorily identified. Dr. Koldewey was inclined to 
regard the former as corresponding to the Great Court 3 
of the Peribolos, including the buildings surrounding 
it, and the latter he would identify with the northern 
court of the enclosure ; 4 while the third great sub- 
division he suggested might be the inner space of the 
Great Court, which he thus* had to count twice ‘over. 
Scarcely more satisfactory is M. Marcel Dieulafoy’s 
reconstruction, since he makes the two main areas, or 
“terraces,” extend to the east of the Sacred Way, over 
ground which, as the excavations have shown, was 
covered by the houses of the town, and thus lay beyond 
the limits of the sacred area. It is possible that the 
apparent discrepancies may be traced to an extensive 
reconstruction of the Peribolos between the Neo- 
Babylonian and the Seleucid periods. But, whatever 

1 In the “ AthenaBum/’ Feb. 12th, 1876. 

* See Scheil, “Esagil ou le temple de JVd-Marduk /’ in the f( Memoires 
de I’Acad&nie des Inscriptions et Belles-lettres/’ vol. xxxix. (1914), pp. 298 If. ; 
and cp. the “ Etude arithmdtique et architectoniquc du texte,” by Dieulafoy, 
ibid., pp. 809 ff. 

* See above, p. 74, Fig. 27, F. 4 Fig. 27, E. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 81 

explanation be adopted, a number of detailed measure- 
ments given by the tablet are best explained on the 
hypothesis that they refer to receding stages of a 
temple-tower. The tablet may thus be cited as afford- 
ing additional support to the current conception of the 
Tower of Babylon, and there is no reason to reject 
the interpretation that has so long been accepted of 
the famous description of the tower that is given by 
Herodotus . 1 

There is one other structure in Babylon that deserves 
mention, and that is the bridge over the Euphrates, since 
its remains are those of the earliest permanent bridge 
of which we have any record in antiquity. It will be 
noted from the ground-plan of E-temen-anki 2 that the 
procession-street leads past the corner of the Peribolos 
to a great gate-way in the river-wall, guarding the head 
of the bridge which crossed the Euphrates on stone 
piers. The river at this point appears to have bee?* one 
hundred and twenty-three metres in breadth. The 
piers are built in thtf shape of boats with their bows 
pointing up-stream, and their form was .no doubt 
suggested by the earlier bridge-of-boats which they 
displaced. The roadway, as in boat-bridges in Meso- 
potamia at the present day, was laid across the boat- 
piers, and must have been very much narrower than 
the length of the piers themselves. The bridge, which 
is mentioned by Herodotus 3 and Diodorus , 4 was the 
work of Nabopolassar. as wfe learn from the East India 
House Inscription, in which Nebuchadnezzar states that 
his father “ had built piers of burnt brick for the 
crossing of the Euphrates .” 5 The stone used in its 
construction, which is referred to by Herodotus, was 
no doubt laid above the brick-piers, as a foundation 
for the flat wooden structure of the bridge itself. The 
later river-wall was the work of Nabonidus, and »it 
marks an extension of the bank westwards, which was 


1 According to M. Dieulafoy’s theory, the tower itself was built in five 
stages, standing on a massive base (hUjullu ) , which in turn rested on a plinth, 
or terrace, extending over a great part of the temple-court ; thus, including 
the temple at the summit of the tower, the eight stages of Herodotus would 
be explained. 

2 See above, p. 74, Fig. 27, and cp. Fig. 28. 3 I , 180. 

4 II., 8. 6 Col. IV., 1. 00— Col. V., 1. 4. 

G 



82 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

rendered possible by the building of Nebuchadnezzar’s 
fortification in the bed of the river to the west of the 
Southern Citadel . 1 The old line of the left bank is 
marked by the ruins of earlier river-walls, traces of 
which have been uncovered below the north-west angle 
of the Peribolos . 3 It was doubtless to protect the 
Peribolos and E-sagila from flood that the bank was 
extended in this way. 

The buildings that have hitherto been described 
all date from the Inter Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian 
periods, and during their first years of work at Babylon 
the excavators found nothing that could be assigned 
to the earlier 'epochs in the history of the capital. It 
was assumed that the destruction of Babylon by Senna- 
cherib had been so thorough that very little of the 
earlier city had survived. But later on it was realized 
that the remains of the older Babylon lay largely below 
the present water-level. The continual deposit of silt 
in the bed of the river has raised the level at which 
water is reached when digging oh the site of the city, 
and it is clear that at the time of the First Dynasty 
the general level of the town was considerably lower 
than in later periods. During recent years a compara- 
tively small body of water has flowed along the 
Euphrates bed, so that it has been possible on the 
Merkes Mound to uncover one quarter in the ancient 
city. There trenches have been cut to a depth of 
twelve metres, when water-level was reached and further 
progress was rendered impossible, although the remains 
of buildings continued still lower. 

From the accompanying plan it will be seen that 
the street net- work has been recovered over a consider- 
able area. The entire structure of the mound consists 
of the dwellings of private citizens, rising layer above 
layer from below water-level to the surface of the soil. 
The upper strata date from the Parthian period, and 
here the houses are scattered with wide spaces of 
garden or waste land between them. In striking con- 
trast to these scanty remains are the streets of the 
Greek, Persian and Neo-Babylonian periods, where the 
houses are crowded together, and open spaces, which 

1 See above, p. 37. 2 See ]>. 74, %. 27, K and L. 







84 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

were at one time courts or gardens, have later on been 
surrendered to the builder. We here have striking 
proof of the value of house-property in Babylon during 
the city’s period of greatest prosperity. Still deeper 
in the mound a level can be dated to the twelfth and 
thirteenth centuries, for in the houses were found 
tablets inscribed in the reigns of Merodach-baladan I., 
Meli-Shipak II.. and Enlil-nadin-shum. In the northern 
part of the mound, in the lowest stratum of all and 
lying partly above and partly below water-level, con- 
tract-tablets of the First Dynasty were uncovered, 
bearing date-formula? of Samsu-iluna, Ammi-ditana and 
Samsu-ditana. Here the mud-brick walls of" the houses, 
though not very thick, all rest upon burnt-brick founda- 
tions, a method of building which, as we have seen , 1 
survived into the Neo-Babylonian period. This is the 
earliest city of which traces have been recovered, and 
a*thiok layer of ashes testifies to its destruction by fire. 
There can be no doubt that the town so destroyed was 
that of Hamlnurabi and his immediate successors, for 
the dated tablets were found lying in the layer of 
ashes undisturbed. We here have additional proof that 
Babylon’s First Dynasty ended in disaster. It is 
possible that the conflagration, in which the city then 
perished, was the work of the Hittite raiders whose 
onslaught we know took place in Samsu-di tana’s reign. 

This portion of the town would appear to have been 
entirely residential,' as it contkins no open space such as 
would have served as a market. Even the temples were 
without a space in front of them, and in this respect 
resemble the churches in many modern cities. It will 
be noted that the temple of Ishtar of Akkad in the 
north of the Merkes Mound, though not actually built 
in, is approached on every side by private houses, though 
on its southern face the road is rather broader than else- 
where. Still more shut in were the temple of Niniband 
the unidentified temple known as “ Z,” both of which 
lie in the mound Ishin-aswad . 2 Here trenches cut 
across the mound have uncovered the ruins of Babylo- 
nian houses in crude brick, the remains of different 
periods lying one above the other as in Merkes, and 

1 Sec above, p. 39. 2 See above, p. fj8 ff. 



THE CITY AND ITS REMAINS 85 

they surround the temples on all sides. The only other 
spot in Babylon where the same strata of streets and 
private houses have been found is in a low range of 
mounds between the Kasr and Tell ‘Amran, where the 
dwellings appear to be of an inferior character such as 
we might expect in a poorer quarter of the town. It is 
only in the rather higher ground that satisfactory results 
h$ve yet been obtained, as in the plain the earlier strata 
descend below water-level. It is possible that further 
digging may lay bare the business-quarters of ancient 
Babylon, and that we may identify the markets and 
bazaars which formed one of the great centres of dis- 
tribution in the ancient world. 

Meanwhile, the Merkes Mound has yielded sufficient 
evidence to form a general conclusion as to the lines on 
which the city was built. The street net- work shown in 
the plan is mainly that of the Neo- Babylonian period, 
but, wherever the earlier levels were preserved, it \tfks 
noted that the old streets followed the same lines with 
but slight variation?;. The main arteries run roughly 
north and south, parallel to the course of the Sacred 
Way, while others cross them at right angles . 1 It 
would appear that, in spite of the absence of open 
spaces, we here have a deliberate attempt at town- 
planning on a scientific basis, the original idea of which 
may be traced back to the First Dynasty. It is true 
that the streets are not entirely regular, but the main 
thoroughfares all run through, and* the island-plots are 
all approximately rectangular. W e may probably place 
this achievement to the credit of the Semitic element in 
the population, as in the two Sumerian towns, in which 
private house-property has been uncovered, there is no 
trace of town-planning. Both at Fiira and at Abu 
Hatab, the sites of the early Sumerian cities of Shurup- 
pak and Kisufra, the streets that have been followed out 
are crooked and far more irregular than those of 
Babylon. It has long been known that Hammurabi 
did much to codify the laws of his country and render 

1 It maybe noted that this fully corroborates the statement of Herodotus 
(I., 180) that the streets of Babylon were straight, particularly those that ran 
at right angles and led to the river. As little more than the foundations of 
the houses are preserved, it is not possible to control his further statement 
that the houses were three or four stories high. 



86 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 

their administration effective. It would now appear that 
similar system and method were introduced at the same 
period into the more material side of the national life. 

The excavations at Babylon have thus thrown some 
direct light upon the condition of the city during the 
period at which it first became the capital. It is true 
that no portion of a royal or sacred building as yet 
identified antedates the later Assyrian Empire, and 
that, as the result of extensive reconstruetion, the 
ruins of temples, palaees and city-walls are mainly 
those of the Neo-Babylonian period. But there 
was no great break in continuity between that epoch 
and its predecessors, so that, when due allowance has 
been made for certain innovations, the buildings of the 
later period may be treated as typical of Babylonian 
civilization as a whole. We have seen how the streets 
of Babylon followed the same lines throughout the 
wholejpf her dynastic period, and a similar spirit of con- 
servatism no doubt characterized her architectural 
development. 1 Temples were rebuilt again and again 
on the old sites, and even in the Neo- Babylonian period 
they retained the mud-brick walls and primitive decora- 
tion of their remote predecessors. Indeed, the con- 
ditions of life in Babylonia precluded any possibility 
of drastic change. The increased use of burnt brick in 
the upper structure of the royal palaces rendered 
possible the brilliant enamelling of the Neo- Babylonian 
craftsmen. But, ev'en as late as Nabopolassar's reign, 
the thick mud-brick walls of the king’s dwelling must 
have resembled those of Hammurabi himself: it was 
mainly in point of size that the earlier palace and city 
differed from those of later monarchs. And when we 
examine the successive periods of the country’s history, 
we shall find that tradition exerted an equally powerful 
influence in retaining unaltered the essential features of 
the national life. It was under her earliest dynasty that 
Babylon worked out in detail a social organization 
that suited her agricultural and commercial activities ; 
and it is a remarkable tribute to its founders that it 
should have survived the shock of foreign domination 
and have imposed its mould upon later generations. 



CHAPTER III 


THE DYNASTIES OF BABYLON: THE CHRONOLOGICAL 
SCHEME IN THE LIGHT OF RECENT DISCOVERIES 

I T has often been said that chronology is the skeleton 
of history ; and it will be obvious that any flaw in 
the chronological scheme must react upon our 
conception of the sequence and inter-relation of eveqj.s. 
Perhaps the most serious defect from which BabyTonian 
chronology has suffered hitherto has been the complete 
absence of any established point of contact between the 
Babylonian dynasties and those earlier lirles of rulers 
who exercised authority in cities other than Babylon. 
On the one hand, with the help of the Babylonian List 
of Kings, we could build up from below a scheme of 
the rulers of Babylon itself. On the other hand, after 
the discovery of the Nippur Kings’ List, it was possible 
to establish the succession of the earlier dynasties of 
Ur and NIsin, and to conjecture their relation to the 
still more remote rulers of Akkad and other cities in 
the north and south. The two halves of the skeleton 
were each articulated satisfactorily enough, but the few 
bones were wanting which should enable us to fit them 
together. It is scarcely necessary to say that there was 
no lack of theories for filling in the gap. But every one 
of the schemes suggested introduced fresh difficulties of 
its own ; and to writers of a more cautious temperament 
it seemed preferable to avoid a detailed chronology 
for those earlier ages. Approximate dates only were 
suggested, for, in spite of the obvious temptations pre- 
sented by the Nippur List, it was realized that any 
attempt to work out the earlier dates in detail was 
bound to be misleading. Such writers were content to 



88 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 

await the recovery of new material and meanwhile to 
think in periods . 1 

It is thus with some satisfaction that the announce- 
ment may be made that the connecting link, for which 
we have been waiting, has quite recently been estab- 
lished, with the result that we have now in our hands 
the necessary material for reconstructing the chronology 
on a sound basis and extending it back without a serious 
break, into the middle of the third millennium. The 
effect of the newly recovered point of contact between 
the earlier and the later phases in the country’s history 
is naturally of greater importance for the former, so far 
as strict chronology is concerned . 2 Hut the information 
afforded, as to the overlapping of additional dynasties 
with that of the West-Semitie kings of Babylon, 
throws an entirely new light upon the ei renin stances 
which led to the rise of Babylon to power. Our picture 
of the capital’s early history, as an independent city- 
state struggling for the mastery of her rivals, ceases to 
be an abstraction, and we may now follow her varying 
fortunes to their climax in Hammurabi’s reign. This 
will form the subject of the following chapter ; but, as 
the new historical material is only now in course of 
publication, it will be advisable first to give some 
account of it and to estimate its effects upon the 
chronological scheme. 

It has long been recognized that certain kings of 
Larsa, the city in Southern Babylonia now marked by 
the mounds of Senkera, were contemporaneous with 
the First Dynasty of Babylon. The greatest of these, 
Rim-Sin, a ruler of Elamite extraction, was the con- 
temporary of Hammurabi, and his signal defeat by 
Babylon was commemorated in the date-formula for 
the thirty-first year of the latter’s reign . 3 'Phis victory 
wasj indeed, the chief event of Hammurabi’s reign, and 
at one time it was thought that it freed Babylon once 
for all from her most powerful enemy. But the dis- 
covery of a chronicle of early Babylonian kings, while 

1 Cf. “Sumer and Akkad,” p. G4. 

2 The new discoveries, in tlieir general effect, do not involve any drastic 
changes in the accepted chronological scheme, as the local rearrangements 
largely counterbalance one another ; see below, p. 1 17 f. 

~ Cf. “Letters of Hammurabi,” III., pp. lxviii, 2.W f. 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHeI^sT 

substantiating the fact of Hammurabi’s victory, and 
affording the additional information that it was followed 
by the capture of Ur and Larsa, proved that Rim-Sin 
survived into the reign of Samsu-iluna, Hammurabi’s 
son, by whom he was finally defeated . 1 Another king 
of Larsa, Warad-Sin, formerly identified with Rim-Sin, 
was correctly recognized as his brother, both of them 
sons of the Elamite Kudur-Mabuk, and successively 
kings of the city . 2 The names of other rulers were 
known from votive texts and foundation-records, and 
from this source it was possible to incorporate in the 
dynasty Gungunum, probably Sumu-ilum (a king of Ur), 
and Nur-Adad or Nur-Immer and his son Sin-idinnam. 
It was realized that Sin-idinnam, the correspondent to 
whom Hammurabi addressed his letters, was not to be 
identified with the king of Larsa of that name , 3 and 
all four rulers were provisionally regarded as having 
preceded Warad-Sin upon the throne . 4 • 

A complete list of the Larsa kings has now been 
recovered by Protestor A. T. Clay of Yak; University, 
who is engaged in preparing the text for publication. 
The dynasty is seen to have consisted of sixteen kings, 
and against the name of each ruler is stated the number 
of years he occupied the throne. The surface of the 
tablet is damaged in places and the figures against three 
of the names are wanting. But this is of no great 
consequence, since the scribe has added up the total 
number of years enumerated in the list, and states it 
at the close as two hundred and eighty-nine . 6 A most 

1 See “ Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings,” I., p. 68 f. ; II., 

p. 17 f. 

2 Cf. Thureau-Dangin, “ Inscriptions de Sumer et d’Akkad,” p. 600, ii. 6 ; 
and “Sum. und Akkad. Konigsinschriften,” p. 210 f., note k. 

3 Cf. “ letters of Hammurabi,” III., pp. xxvi ff. 

4 Their votive inscriptions are collected by Thureau-Dangin, “Konigsin- 
schriften,” pp. 206 ff. 

6 Knowing that f was engaged upon this volume of my History ami that 
it would probably be printed off before; his own work left the press, Professor 
Clay very kindly sent me a transcript of bis Larsa Kings’ List with full per- 
mission to make use of it. To enable the reader to follow the argument 
with regard to the dynasty and its chronology, the following transliteration 
and rendering may be given of the text: “21 mu Na-ap-la-nu-um | 28 mu 
E-mi-su | 35 mu Sa-mu-um | 9 mu Za-ba-aia | 27 mu Gu-un-gu-nu-uin | 11 mu 
A-bi-sa-ri-e | 29 mu Su-mu-ilum | 16 mu Nu-ur-(ilu)Adad | 7 (?) mu (ilu)Sin-i- 
din-nam | 2 mu (ilu)Sin-i-ri-ba-am | 6(?) mu (ilu)JSin-i-ki-sha-am | 1 mu Sili(li)- 
(ilu)Adad | 12 mu Warad-(ilu)Sin | 61 mu (ilu)Ri-im-(ilu)Sin | 12(?) mu 
(ilu)Ila-am-mu-ra-bi | 12 mu Sa am-su-i-lu-na sharru | 289 mu-bi.” In the 



90 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


important point about the list is that the last two kings 
of the dynasty are stated to have been Hammurabi and 
Samsu-iluna, who, as we know, were the sixth and 
seventh rulers of the First Dynasty of Babylon. It is 
true that Hammurabi is one of the three kings against 
whose names the figures are wanting. But we already 
know that he conquered Larsa in his thirty-first year , 1 
so that we may confidently regard him as king of that 
city for the last twelve years of his reign. The two 
remaining kings of the dynasty whose years are missing, 
Sin-idinnam and Sin-ikisham, have thirteen years to 
divide between them, and since they are only separated 
from each other by the short two-years’ reign of Sin- 
iribam, the absence of the figures is practically imma- 
terial. W e are thus furnished with the means for 
establishing in detail the relationship of the earliest 
kings of Babylon to those of Larsa. 

* But like most new discoveries, this one has brought 
a fresh problem in its train. We already suspected that 
Rim-Sin was. a long-lived monarch, and we here find 
him credited with a reign of sixty-one years. But that 
fact would be difficult to reconcile with his survival into 
Samsu-iluna’s tenth year, which, according to the figures 
of the new list, would have fallen eighty-three years 
after his accession to the throne. That ltim-Sin did 
survive into the reign of Samsu-iluna seems practically 
certain, since the broken passage in the late chronicle, 
from which the fact was at fi*st inferred, is supported by 
two date-formula; which can be satisfactorily explained 
only on that hypothesis . 2 Thus, if he ascended the 


translation that follows, a semicolon separates each line of the text : “ 21 years 
Naplanum ; 28 years Kinisu ; 115 years Samum ; 9 years Zalmia ; 27 years 
Gungunum ; 11 years Abi-sare ; 29 years Sumu-iluin ; 1(» years Nur-Adad ; 
7(?) years Sin-idinnam ; 2 years Sin-iribam ; (>(?) years Sin-ikisham ; 1 year 
§ili-^dad ; 12 years Warad-Sin ; 01 years Rim-Sin ; 12(*j years Hammurabi ; 
12 years Samsu-iluna, the kin# ; 289 the years thereof.” From the insertion 
of the word sharru , “ king,” after Samsu-iluna’s name, we may infer that the 
list is a contemporaneous document, drawn up in Samsu-iluna’s twelfth year. 
Another point of interest is that the scribe lias written the determinative for 
divinity before the names of Rim-Sin and Hammurabi, but not before that of 
Samsu-iluna. The numbers followed by a query are those suggested by 
Professor Clay for the three broken passages ; it will he noted that they 
make up the total of the figures, which is given by the scribe as two hundred 
and eighty-nine years. 

1 See above, p. 88. * See further, p. 98 f. 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 91 

throne of Larsa when merely a boy of fifteen, we should 
have to infer from the new figures that he was leading 
a revolt against Samsu-iluna in his ninety-eighth year — 
a combination of circumstances which is just within the 
bounds of possibility, but is hardly probable or con- 
vincing. We shall see presently that there is a com- 
paratively simple, and not improbable, solution of the 
puzzle, to which another line of evidence seems to 
converge. 

It will be noted that the new list of the kings of 
Larsa, important as it undoubtedly is for the history of 
its own period, does not in itself supply the long-desired 
link between the earlier and the later chronology of 
Babylonia. The relationship of the First Dynasty of 
Babylon with that of Nisin 1 is, so far as the new list is 
concerned, left in the same state of uncertainty as before. 
The possibility has long been foreseen that the Dynasty 
of Nisin and the First Dynasty of Babylon overlapped 
each other , 2 as was proved to have been the case with 
the first dynasties in tiie Babylonian List of Kings, and 
as was confidently assumed with regard to the dynasties 
of Larsa and Babylon. That no long interval separated 
the two dynasties from one another had been inferred 
from the character of the contract-tablets, dating from 
the period of the Nisin Dynasty, which had been found 
at Nippur ; for these were seen to bear a close resem- 
blance to those of the First Babylonian Dynasty in 
form, 'material, writing, and* terminology . 3 There were 
obvious advantages to be obtained, if grounds could be 
produced for believing that the two dynasties were not 
only closely consecutive but were partly contempora- 
neous. For, in such a case, it would follow that not 
only the earlier kings of Babylon, but also the kings 
of Larsa, would have been reigning at the same time 
as the later Icings of Nisin. In fact, we shoyld 

1 It should be noted that the name of the Babylonian city now usually 
rendered as Isin should he more correctly read as Nisin. 1 his is suggested 
by two forms of the name, which Prof. Clay tells me occur on two tablets in 
the Yale Babylonian Collection, Nos. 5415 and 5417 • in the date-formulae 
upon these tablets the city’s name is written as Nt-i-si-in (hi) and fli-i-si-in- 
na (ki). Eventually the initial n was dropped ; cf. p. 254, n. 2. 

2 Cf. “Chronicles," 1., p. Kill, n. 1. . . 

* Cf. Hilprecht, “ Mathematical, Metrological and Chronological 

Tablets” ( in “ Bab. Exped.,’’ Ser. A., Col. X., i.), p- 55, n. 1. 



sm^lor pr^ra^^fes each vying with the other m a 
contest for the hegemony and maintaining a com- 
paratively .independent rule within its own borders* 
It was fully recognized that such a condition of 
affairs would amply account for the confusion in the 
later succession at Nisin, and our scanty knowledge 


of that period could then be combined with the 
fuller sources of information on the First Dynasty 


of Babylon . 1 

In the absence of any definite synchronism, such as , 
we already possessed for deciding the inter-relations of 
the early Babylonian dynasties, other means were tried 
m order to establish a point of contact. The capture of 
Nisin by Rim-Sin, which is recorded in date-formulae 
upon tablets found at Tell Sifr and Nippur, was 
evidently looked upon as an event of considerable 
importance, since it formed an epoch for dating tablets 
in that district. It was thus a legitimate assumption 
that the capture of the city by Rim-Sin should be 
regarded as having brought the Dynasty of Nisin to an 
end ; such an assumption certainly supplied an adequate 
reason for the rise of a new era in time-reckoning. 
Now in the date-formulas of the First Dynasty of 
Babylon two captures of the city of Nisin are com- 
memorated, the earlier one in that for the seventeenth 


year of Sin-muballit, the later in the formula for 
Hammurabi’s seventh yea'r. Advocates have’ been 
found for deriving each of these dates from the capture 
of Nisin by Rim-Sin, and so obtaining the desired point 
of contact . 2 But the obvious objection to either of 
these views is that we should hardly expect a victory by 
Rim-Sin to be commemorated in the date-formula; of 


* Cf. “Sumer and Akkad/’ pp. 03, 313 f. 

* The identification of Rim-Sm’s capture of Nisin with that referred to 
in Sin-muballit’s seventeenth year was first suggested in “ Letters of Ham- 
murabi/’ III., p. 228, n. 39, and it was adopted for purposes of chronology by 
Hilprecht, “Math., Met., and Chron. Tabl./’ p. 50, note; Meyer, “ Ge- 
schichte/’ I., ii., pp. 345, 556; Ungnad, “ Orient. Lit.-Zeit./’ 1908, Ool. 66, 
and “Z.D.M.G.,” LVl., p. 714, and others. Langdon has recently sought 
to identify Rim-Sin’s capture with that referred to in the formula for Ham- 
murabi’s seventli year; see “The Expositor,” 1910, p. 131, and “Babylo- 
niaca,” 1914, p. 41, and cf. Chiera, “Legal and Administrative Documents/’ 
p. 24 f. For Chiera’s own researches on the point, see below, p. 93 f. 




\ N VI, AM 






asw 


the^vLs$4^ ot t!am have not 
|W*i<^ Moreover, if we accept the 

earher identification, it raises the fresh difficulty that 
the era of Nisin was not disturbed by Hammurabi’s 
conquest of that city. The rejection of both views 
thus leads to the same condition of uncertainty from 
which we started. 


A fresh and sounder line of research has recently 
been opened up. A detailed study has been undertaken 
of the proper names occurring on contract-tablets from 
Nippur, and it was remarked that some of the proper 
names found in documents belonging to the Nisin and 
Larsa Dynasties are identical with those appearing on 
other Nippur tablets belonging to the First Dynasty of 
Babylon. 1 That they were borne by the same individuals 
is in many cases quite certain from the fact that the 
names of their fathers are also given. Both sets of dopfr- 
ments were not only found at Nippur but were obviously 
written there, since they closely resemble one another in 
general appearance, style and arrangement. The same 
witnesses, too, occur again and again on them’, and some 
of the tablets, which were drawn up under different 
dynasties, are the work of the same scribe. It has even 
been found possible, by the study of the proper names, 
to follow the history of a family through three genera- 
tions, during which it was living at Nippur under 
different rulers belonging to the dynasties of Nisin, 
Larsa and Babylon ; and one branch of the family can 
never have left the city, since its members in successive 
generations held the office of “pashishu,” or anointing- 
priest, in the temple of the goddess Ninlil. 2 

Of such evidence it will suffice for the moment to 


cite two examples, since they have a direct bearing on 
the assumption .that Rim-Sin’s conquest of Nisin put an 
end to the dynasty in that city. From two of the 
documents we learn that Ziatum, the scribe, pursued 
his calling at Nippur not only under Damik-ilishu, the 


1 Cf. Edward Cliiera, tc Legal and Administrative Documents from Nippur 
chiefly from the Dynasties of lain and Larsa” (in ie University of Pennsylvania 
Museum Publications, Babylonian Section/’ Vol. VIII., No. 1), pp. 19 ff* 

2 Op, cit.i p. 22. 



94 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


last king of Nisin, but also under Rim-Sin of Larsa , 1 
a fact which definitely proves that Nippur passed under 
the control of these two rulers within the space of one 
generation. The other piece of evidence is still more 
instructive. It has long been known that Hammurabi 
was Rim-Sin’s contemporary, and from the new Kings’ 
List we have gained the further information that he 
succeeded him upon the throne of Larsa. Now two 
other of the Nippur documents prove that Ibkushu, the 
pashishn , or “anointing-priest” of the goddess Ninlil, 
was living at Nippur under Damik-ilishu and also under 
Hammurabi in the latter’s thirty-first year . 2 This fact 
not only confirms our former inference, but gives very 
good grounds for believing that the close of Damik- 
ilishu’s reign must have fallen within that of Rim-Sin. 
W e may therefore regard it as certain that Rim-Sin’s 
conquest of Nisin, which began a new era for time- 
ce^koning in central and southern Babylonia, put an 
ena to the reign of Damik-ilishu and to the Dynasty of 
Nisin, of which he was the last fnember. In order to 
connect the chronology of Babylon with that of Nisin it 
therefore only remains to ascertain at what period in 
Rim-Sin’s reign, as King of Larsa, his conquest of 
Nisin took place. 

It is at this point that a further discovery of Prof. 
Clay has furnished us with the necessary data for a 
decision. Among the tablets of the Yale Babylonian 
Collection he has* come across several documents of 
Rim-Sin’s reign, which bear a double-date. In every 
case the first half of the double-date corresponds to 
the usual formula for the second year of the Nisin era. 
On two of them the second half of the date-formula 
equates that year with the eighteenth of some other era, 
while on two others the same year is equated w r ith the 
nineteenth year . 3 It is obvious that' we here have 


1 Cf. Chiera, op. cit., pi. ix., No. 15, 11. 27 ff. ; pi. xxiii., No. 35, 11. 20 ff. ; 
and p. 21, No. 20. 

2 Op. cit., pi. vii., No. 12, 11. 29, 35 f. ; pi. xxxv., No. 81, 11. 2, 23 ff. ; 
and p. 20, No. 0. 

* Professor Clay has written to inform me that on the two tablets Y.B.C., 
Nos. 4229 and 4270, the usual formula for the second year of the Nisin era is 
followed by the words shag muki XVIlI-ham, which may be rendered u within 
the eighteenth year,” i.e. corresponding to the eighteenth year. On one tablet 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 95 


scribes dating documents according to a new era, and 
explaining that that year corresponds to the eighteenth 
(or nineteenth) of one with which they had been familiar, 
and which the new method of time-reckoning was 
probably intended to displace. Now we know that, before 
the capture of Nisin, the scribes in cities under Rim- 
Sin’s control had been in the habit of dating documents 
by events in his reign, according to the usual practice ot 
early Babylonian kings . 1 But this method was given up 
after the capture of Nisin, and for at least thirty-one 
years .after that event the era of Nisin was in vogue . 2 
In the second year of the era, when the new method of 
dating had just been settled, it would have been natural 
for the scribes to add a note explaining the relationship 
of the new era to the old. But, as the old changing 
formula 1 had been discontinued, the only possible way 
to make the equation would have been to reckon 
the number of years Rim-Sin had been upon the thrga>e. 
Hence we may confidently conclude that the second 
figure in the double-dates was intended to.give the year 
of Rim-Sin’s reign which corresponded to the second 
year of the Nisin era. 

It may seem strange that in some of the documents 

the addition to the usual date takes the form shag mu ki XV Ill-ham in-ag (?), 
hut Prof. Clay is not quite certain of the reading of the sign ag , which, he 
writes, 6 1 because the tablet was cased, is badly twisted.” If the reading is 
correct it is important, for the addition may then be rendered u within (i.e. 
corresponding to) the eighteenth year that he reigned/’ the word in-ag being 
the verb usually employed in Sumenffti dynastic lists in sentences stating the 
number of years a king reigned. Two other long date-formulas for the same 
year (on tablets Y.B.C., Nos. 4307 and 4481) begin as follows : mu ki II dimQ) 
mu ki XIX gis-ku-makh Ana (dingir)En-lil ( dingir)En-ki , etc. Here the 
reading of the sign dim is not absolutely certain, but, assuming its correctness, 
the formula may be rendered : “ The second year (corresponding to the nine- 
teenth year) in which with the exalted weapon of Anu, Enlil and Ea, Rim- 
Sin the king took the city of Nisin,” etc. It will be seen that the readings, 
which are suggested by Prof. Clay for the two uncertain signs in the formula?, 
give excellent sense, and, if correct, they definitely prove that the second 
figures in the equations were derived from Rim-Sin’s regnal years. Rut, even 
if we regard the two signs as quite uncertain, the general interpretation of the 
double-dates is not affected ; it would be difficult to explain them on any 
other hypothesis than that adopted in the text. 

1 Some of his earlier date-formulae have been recovered ; see below, 
p. 155. 

2 For many years past the latest date recovered of the Nisin era was one 
of the thirtieth year ; see Schcil, “ Recueil de travaux,” XXI. (1899), p. 125, 
and cf. “ Letters of Hammurabi,” 111., p. 229. Prof. Clay informs me that 
among the tablets of the Yale Babylonian Collection is one dated in the thirty- 
first year of the fall of Nisin. 



96 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

with the double-dates the second figure is given as 
eighteen and in others as nineteen. There is more than 
one way in which it is possible to explain the dis- 
crepancy. If we assume that the conquest of Nisin took 
place towards the close of Rim-Sin’s seventeenth year, 
it is possible that, during the two years that followed, 
alternative methods of reckoning were in vogue, some 
scribes regarding the close of the seventeenth year as 
the first year of the new epoch, others beginning the 
new method of time-reckoning with the first day of the 
following Nisan. But that explanation can hardly be 
regarded as probable, for, in view of the importance 
attached to the conquest, the promulgation of the 
new era commemorating the event would have been 
carried out with more than ordinary ceremonial, and the 
date of its adoption would not have been left to the cal- 
culation of individual scribes. It is far more likely that 
thp explanation is to be sought in the second figure of 
the equation, the discrepancy being due to alternative 
methods of reckoning Rim-Sin’s regnal years. Again 
assuming that the conquest took place in Rim-Sin’s 
seventeenth year, those scribes who counted the years 
from his first date-formula would have made the second 
year of the era the eighteenth of his reign. But others 
may have included in their total the year of Rim-Sin’s 
accession to the throne, and that would account for their 
regarding the same year as the nineteenth according to 
the abolished system of reckoning . 1 This seems the 
preferable explanation of the two, but it will be noticed 
that, on either alternative, we must regard the first year 
of the Nisin era as corresponding to the seventeenth 
year of Rim-Sin’s reign. 

One other point requires to be settled, and that is 
the relation of the Nisin era to the actual conquest of 
the city. Was the era inaugurated in Ahe same year 
as the conquest, or did its first year begin with the 
following first of Nisan ? In the course of the fifth 

1 The fact that they had always dated hy formula*, and not hy numbered 
years of the kind’s reign, is quite sufficient to explain the uncertainty as to 
whether the accession-year should be included in their reckoning. Thus the 
apparent discrepancy in the double-dates, so far from weakening the explana- 
tion put forward in the text, really affords it additional support and 
confirmation. 







THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME Sff 

chapter the early Babylonian, method of time-reckoning 
is referred to, and it will be ’Seen that precisely the 
same question arises with regard to certain other 
events commemorated in date-formulas of the period . 1 * 
Though some features of the system are still rather 
uncertain, we have proof that the greater historical 
events did in certain cases affect the current date- 
formula, especially when this was of a provisional 
character, with the result that the event was com- 
memorated in the final formula for the year of its 
actual occurrence. Arguing from analogy, we may 
therefore regard the inauguration of the Nisin era as 
coinciding with the year of the city’s capture. In the 
case of this .particular event the arguments in favour 
of such a view apply with redoubled force, for no other 
victory by a king of Larsa was comparable to it in 
importance. We may thus regard the last year of 
Damik-ilishu, King of Nisin, as corresponding to the 
seventeenth year of Rim-Sin, King of Larsa. And 
since the relationship *of Rim-Sin with Hammurabi has 
been established by the new list of Larsa kings, we are 
at length furnished with the missing synchronism for 
connecting the dynasties of the Nippur Kings’ List 
with those of Babylon. 

We may now return to the difficulty introduced by 
• the new list of Larsa kings, on which, as we have 
already noted, the long reign of Rim-Sin is apparently 
entered as preceding the thirty-second year of Hammu- 
rabi’s rule in Babylon. Soon after the publication of 
the chronicle, from a broken passage on which it was 
inferred that Rim-Sin survived into Samsu-iluna’s reign , 3 
an attempt was made to explain the words as referring to 
a son of Rim-Sin and not to that ruler himself . 3 But 
it was pointed out that the sign, which it was suggested 
should be rendered as “ son,” was never employed with 
that meaning in chronicles of the period , 4 and that we 


1 See below, p. 190. 

* See “ Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings,” II., p. 18. 

* Cf. Winckler, “ Orient. Lit.-Zeit./’ 1907, Col. 585 f., and Ilrozny, 
“ Wiener Zeitschrift, ” Bd. 21 (1908), p. 882. 

4 Cf. “ Sumer and Akkad,” p. 317, n. 2. The broken line in the chronicle 

reads: [ ]-xu-na-a (m)Rim-(ilu)Sin ana illik(ik ), u [ ]... 

Rim-Sin to [ ] marched.” The rendering suggested by Winckler and 

H 



98 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

must consequently continue to regard the passage as 
referring to Rim-Sin. It was further noted that two 
contract-tablets found at Tell Sifr, which record the 
same deed of sale, are dated the one by Rim-Sin, and 
the other in Samsu-iluna’s tenth year . 1 In both of 
these deeds the same parties are represented as carrying 
out the same transaction, and, although there is a differ- 
ence in the price agreed upon, the same list of witnesses 
occur on both, and both are dated in the same month. 
The most reasonable explanation of the existence of the 
two documents would seem to be that, at the period 
the transaction they record took place, the possession 
of the town now marked by the mounds of Tell Sifr 
was disputed by Rim-Sin and Samsu-iluna. Soon after 
the first of the deeds had been drawn up, the town may 
have changed hands, and, in order that the transaction 
should still be recognized as valid, a fresh copy of the 
deed was made out with the new ruler’s date-formula 
substituted for that which was no longer current . 2 But 
whatever explanation be adopted,, the alternative dates 
upon the documents, taken in conjunction with the 
chronicle. Certainly imply that Rim-Sin was living at 
least as late as Samsu-iluna’s ninth year, and probably 
in the tenth year of his reign. 

If, then, we accept the face value of the figures given 
by the new Larsa Kings’ List, we are met by the 
difficulty already referred to, that Rim-Sin would 
have been an active political force in Babylonia .some 
eighty-tliree years after his own accession to the throne. 
And assuming that he was merely a boy of fifteen when 
he succeeded his brother at Larsa, he would have been 
taking the field against Samsu-iluna in his ninety- 
eighth year . 3 But it is extremely unlikely that he was 
so young at his accession, and, in view of the improba- 
bilities involved, it is preferable to scrutinize the figures 

Ilrozny was : “ [ ]zuna, the son of Kim-Sin, to [ ] marched ; " but, 

their translation ignored the fact that, in tlie.se late chronicles, “ son ” is 
always expressed by the sign tuji (mar it) % never by a f aplu ). 

1 Of. (hignad, ‘ k Zeits. fur Assyr./’ XXIII., pp. 73 ff., and Thureau-Dangin, 
(i .Journal Asiatique,” xiv., 1909, pp. 335 ff. 

2 The difference in price may perhaps be traced to the political revolution, 
which may have enabled one of the parties to exact better terms from the 
other. 

3 Sec above, p. 90 f. 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 99 

in the Larsa list with a view to ascertaining whether 
they are not capable of any other interpretation. 

It has already been noted that the Larsa List is a 
contemporaneous document, since the scribe has added 
the title of “ king ” to the last name only, that of 
Samsu-iluna, implying that he was the reigning king 
at the time the document was drawn up. It is unlikely, 
therefore, that any mistake should have been made in 
the number of years assigned to separate rulers, the 
date-formula; and records of whose reigns would have 
been easily accessible for consultation by the compiler. 
The long reign of sixty-one years, with which Rim-Sin 
is credited, must be accepted as correct, for it does not 
come to us as a tradition incorporated in a Neo-Baby- 
lonian document, but is attested by a scribe writing 
within two years of the time when, as we have seen, 
Rim-Sin was not only living but fighting against the 
armies of Babylon. In fact, the survival of Rim-Sin 
throughout the period of Hammurabi’s rule at Larsa, 
and during the first* ten years of Samsu-iluna’s reign, 
perhaps furnishes us with the solution of our problem. 

If Rim-Sin had not been deposed by Hammurabi 
on his conquest of Larsa, but had been retained there 
with curtailed powers as the vassal of Babylon, may 
not his sixty-one years of rule have included this 
period of dependence ? In that case he may have ruled 
as independent King of Larsa for thirty-nine years, 
followed by twenty-two jfears during which he owed 
allegiance successively to Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna, 
until in the latter’s tenth year he revolted and once 
more took the field against Babylon. It is true that, 
with the missing figures in the Kings’ List restored as 
suggested by Professor Clay, the figure for the total 
duration of the dynasty may be cited against this expla- 
nation ; for the two hundred and eighty-nine years is 
obtained by regarding the whole of Rim-Sin’s reign as 
anterior to Hammurabi’s conquest. There are two 
possibilities with regard to the figure. In the first 
place it is perhaps just possible that Sin-idinnam and 
Sin-ikisham may have reigned between them thirty- 
five years, in place of the thirteen years provisionally 
assigned to them. If that were so, the scribe’s total 



100 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

would be twenty-two years less than the addition of 
his figures, and the discrepancy could only be explained 
by some such overlapping as suggested. But it is far 
more likely that the figures are correctly restored, and 
that the scribe's total corresponds to that of the figures 
in the list. On such an assumption it is not impro- 
bable that he mechanically added up the figures placed 
opposite the royal names, without deducting from his 
total the years of Rim-Sin’s dependent rule. 

This explanation appears to be the one least open to 
objection, as it does not necessitate the alteration of 
essential figures, and merely postulates a natural over- 
sight on the part of the compiler. The placing of 
Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna in the list after, and not 
beside, Rim-Sin would be precisely on the lines of the 
Babylonian Kings’ List, in which the Second Dynasty 
is enumerated between the First and Third, although, as 
we now know, it overlapped a part of each. In that 
case, too, the scribe has added up the totals of his 
separate dynasties, without any ‘indication of their 
periods oi overlapping. The explanation in both cases 
is, of course, that the modern system of arranging 
contemporaneous rulers in parallel columns had not 
been evolved by the Babylonian scribes. Moreover, 
we have evidence that at least one other compiler of a 
dynastic list was careless in adding up his totals ; from 
one of his discrepancies it would seem that he counted 
a period of three months r as three years, while in 
another of his dynasties a similar period of three 
months was probably counted twice over both as 
months and years . 1 It is true that the dynastic list 
in question is a late and not a contemporaneous docu- 
ment, but at least it inclines us to accept the possibility 
of such an oversight as that suggested on the part ot 
the compiler of the Larsa list. 

The only reason which we have as yet examined 
for equating the first twenty-two years of Babylon’s 
suzerainty over Larsa with the latter part of Rim-Sin’s 
reign has been the necessity of reducing the duration of 
that monarch’s life within the bounds of probability. If 
this had been the only ground for the assumption, it 

1 Cf. “ Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings," 1 ., p. 184 f. 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 101 


might perhaps have been regarded as more or less pro- 
blematical. But the Nippur contract- tablets and legal 
documents, to which reference has already been made , 1 
furnish us with a number of separate and independent 
pieces of evidence in its support. The tablets contain 
references to officials and private people who were 
living at Nippur in the. reigns of Damik-ilishu, the 
last king of Nisin, and of llim-Sin of Larsa, and also 
under Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna of Babylon. Most 
of the tablets of Rim-Sin’s period are dated by the 
Nisin era, and, since the dates of those drawn up in 
the reigns of Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna can be 
definitely ascertained by means of their date-formulae, 
it is possible to estimate the intervals of time separating 
references to the same man or to a man and his son. It 
is remarkable that in some eases the interval of time 
appears excessive if the whole of Rim-Sin’s reign of 
sixty-one years be placed before Hammurabi’s capture 
of Larsa. If, on the other hand, we regard ltim-Sin as 
Babylon’s vassal for the last twenty-tWo years of his 
rule in Larsa, the intervals of time are . reduced to 
normal proportions. As the point is of some import- 
ance for the chronology, it may be as well to cite one 
or two examples of this class of evidence, in order that 
the reader may judge of its value for himself. 

The first example we will examine will be that 
furnished by Ibkushu, the anointing-priest of Ninlil, 
to whom we have already referred* as having lived at 
Nippur under Damik-ilishu and also under Hammurabi 
in the latter’s thirty-first year 2 ; both references, it may 
be noted, describe him as holding his priestly office at 
Nippur. Now, if we accept the face value of the figures 
in the Larsa List we obtain an interval between these 
two references of at least forty-four years and probably 
more . 3 By the suggested interpretation of the figures 
in the List the interval would be reduced by twenty- 
two years. A very similar case is that of the scribe 
Ur-kingala, who is mentioned in a document dated in 

1 See above, p. 03 f. 2 See above, p. 94, n. 2. 

3 If ibkushu was appointed priest in Damik-ilishu s last year, the interval 

would be exactly forty-four years ; but as Damik-ilishu reigned lor twenty- 
three years, Ibkushu may well have been appointed several y<*ars earlier. 



102 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

the eleventh year of the Nisin era, and again in one of 
Samsu-iluna’s fourth year . 1 In the one case we obtain 
an interval of fifty years between the two references, 
while in the other it is reduced to twenty-eight years. 
Very similar results follow if we examine references on 
the tablets to fathers and their sons. A certain Adad- 
rabi, for example, was living at Nippur under I)amik- 
ilishu, while his two sons Mar-irsitim and Mutum-ilu 
are mentioned there in the eleventh year of Samsu- 
iluna’s reign . 2 In the one case we must infer an interval 
of at least sixty-seven years, and probably more, between 
father and sons ; in the other an interval of forty-five 
years or more ‘is obtained. It will be unnecessary to 
examine further examples, as those already cited may 
suffice to illustrate the point. It will be noted that 
the unabridged interval can in no single instance be 
pronounced impossible. But the cumulative effect pro- 
duced is striking. The independent testimony of these 
private documents and contracts tjius converges to the 
same point as the data with regard to the length of Rim- 
Sin’s life. Several of the figures so obtained suggest that, 
taken at their face value, the regnal years in the Larsa 
List yield a total that is about one generation too long. 
They are thus strongly in favour of the suggested method 
of interpreting Rim-Sin’s reign in the Larsa succession. 

W e may thus provisionally place the sixty-first year of 
Rim-Sin’s rule at Larsa in the tenth year of Samsu-ilyma’s 
reign, when we may assume \hat he revolted and took 
the field against his suzerain. It was in that year that 
Tell Sifr changed hands for a time. But it is probably 
a significant fact that not a single document of Samsu- 
iluna’s reign has been found in that district dated after 
his twelfth year. In fact we shall see reason to believe 
that the whole of Southern Babylonia soon passed from 
the control of Babylon, though Samsu-il'una succeeded 
in retaining his hold on Nippur for some years longer. 
Meanwhile it will suffice to note that the suggested 

1 Sec Poebcl, “ Babylonian Legal and Business Documents, ” id. 3 No G, 
11. 25, 30 ff, and pi. 11, No. 23, II. 33, 3G ff. ; and of. Cldera, “ Legal and 
Administrative Documents from Nippur,” p. 21, No. 24. 

2 Of. Ohiera, op. cit., p. 22. Chi era’s own deduction from the proper names 
(pp. 20 ff.) must of course he modified in view of the Larsa Kings’ List ; hut 
his data hold good. 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 103 

sequence of events fits in very well with other refer- 
ences in the date-lists. The two defeats of Nisin by 
Hammurabi and his father Sin-muballit, which have 
formed for so long a subject of controversy, now cease 
to be a stumbling-block. We see that botli took place 
before Rim-Sin’s capture of Nisin , 1 and were merely 
temporary successes which had no effect upon the con- 
tinuance of the Nisin dynasty. That was brought to 
an end by Rim-Sin’s victory in his seventeenth year, 
when the Nisin era of dating was instituted. That, in 
cities where it had been long employed, the continued 
use of the era alongside his own formulae should have 
been permitted by Hammurabi for some eight years 
after his capture of Larsa, is sufficiently explained by 
our assumption that Rim-Sin was not deposed, but was 
retained in his own capital as the vassal of Babylon. 
There would have been a natural reluctance to abandon 
an established era, especially if Babylon’s authority was 
not rigidly enforced during the first few years of her 
suzerainty, as with earlier vassal states . 2 « 

The overlapping of the Dynasty of Nisin with that 
of Babylon for a period of one hundred* and eleven 
years, which follows from the new information afforded 
by the Yale tablets, merely carries the process still 
further that was noted some years ago with regard to 
the first three Dyn asties of the Babylonian List of 
Kings. At the time of the earlier discovery consider- 
able* difference of opinion»existed as to the number of 
years, if any, during which the Second Dynasty of the 
List held independent sway in Babylonia. The archeo- 
logical evidence at that time available seemed to suggest 
that the kings of the Sea-Country never ruled in 
Babylonia, and that the Third, or Kassite, Dynasty 

1 On the suggested hypothesis with regard to the Larsa List, Rim-Sin's 
capture of Nisin would have taken place two years after Hainmurahi’s attack 
on that city. Hut, n we reject the hypothesis, the Nisin era would have begun 
in Sin-m uballifs seventh year. 

' l See })}>. 142 if. The survival of the Nisin era, during the first years 
of Larsa’ s vassalage, seems to offer less difficulties than those involved in 
ail acceptance of ltim-Sin’s sixty-one years of independent rule, followed at 
first by twenty-one or twenty-two years of political obscurity, and then by a 
period of active operations in the field. And, apart from the improbabilities 
involved in the length of Rim-SiiLs life, the further difficulty of the inter- 
ruption of the Nisin era by Sin-muballit.’ s and Hammurabi's conquests of the 
city would still remain (see above, p. 1)2 f.). 



104 , HISTORY OF BABYLON 

followed the .First Dynasty without any considerable 
break . 1 Other writers, in their endeavours to use and 
reconcile the chronological references to earlier rulers 
which occur in later texts, assumed a period of inde- 
pendence for the Second Dynasty which varied, accord- 
ing to their differing hypotheses, from one hundred and 
sixty-eight to eighty years . 2 Since the period of the 
First Dynasty was not fixed' independently, the com- 
plete absence of contemporary evidence with regard to 
the Second Dynasty led to a considerable divergence of 
opinion upon the point. 

So far as the archaeological evidence is concerned, 
we are still without any great body of documents 
dated in their reigns, which should definitely prove the 
rule of the Sea-Country kings in Babylonia. But two 
tablets have now been discovered in the Nippur Col- 
lections which are dated in the second year of Iluma- 
ilum, the founder of the Second Dynasty . 3 And this fact 
is important, since it proves that for two years at any 
rate he exe* cised control over a greut part of Babylonia. 
Now among the numerous documents dated in the 
reigns of Hammurabi and Samsu-iluna, which have 
been found at Nippur, none are later than Samsu- 
iluna’s twenty -ninth year, although the succession of 
dated documents up to that time is almost unbroken. 
It would thus appear that after Samsu-iluna’s twenty- 
ninth year Babylon lost her hold upon Nippur. It is 
difficult to resist tke conclusion that the power which 
drove her northwards was the kingdom of the Sea-, 
Country, whose founder lluma-ilum waged successful 
campaigns against both Samsu-iluna and his son Abi- 
eshu’, as we learn from the late Babylonian chronicle . 4 
Another fact that is probably of equal significance is 
that, of the tablets from Larsa and its neighbourhood, 

1 That was the view I suggested in “Chronicles concerning Early Baby- 
Ionian Kings/' I., pp. 90 ff., and it was adopted by Meyer, 44 Geschichte des 
Altertums,” Bd. I., lift. ii., p. 340 f. 

2 Of. “Sumer and Akkad/’ p. 63, u. 2. 

3 See Poebel, “ Business Documents/’ pi. 40, No. 68, and Obi era, “Legal 
and Administrative Documents,” pi. xl., No. 89. 

4 Cf. “ Chronicles," II., pp. 19 ff. That the Sea-Country was Babylon’s 
most powerful rival at this time may be inferred from the inclusion of Iiuma- 
ilum’s name in the Chronicle. He is evidently selected for mention as the 
leader of the most notable invasion of the period. 







the (Chronological scheme 105 

none have been found dated after Samsu-iluna’s*twelfth 
year, although we have numerous examples drawn up 
during the earlier years of his reign. We may there- 
fore assume that soon after his twelve years of rule at 
Larsa, which are assigned to him on the new Kings’ 
List , 1 that city was lost to Babylon. And again it is 
difficult to resist the conclusion that the Sea-Country 
was the aggressor. From Samsu-iluna’s own date- 
formuke we know that in his twelfth year “all the 
lands revolted ” against him . 2 W e may therefore with 
considerable probability place Iluma-ilum’s revolt in that 
year, followed immediately by his establishment of an 
independent kingdom in the south . 3 He probably soon 
gained control over Larsa and gradually pushed north- 
wards until he occupied Nippur in Samsu-iluna’s 
twenty-ninth or thirtieth year. 

Such appears to be the most probable course of 
events, so far as it may be determined in accordance 
with our new evidence. And since it definitely proves 
that the founder of the Second Dynasty *»i 'be Kings’ 
List established, at any rate for a time, aiV effective 
control over southern and central Babylonia, we are 
the more inclined to credit the kings of the Sea-Country 
with having later on extended their authority farther 
to the north. The fact that the compiler of the 
Babylonian List of Kings should have included the 
rulers of the Sea-Country in that document has always 
formed a weighty argument* for regarding some of them 
as having ruled in Babylonia ; and it was only possible 
to eliminate the dynasty entirely from the chronological 
scheme by a very drastic reduction of his figures for 

1 See above, p. 90, note. 

2 See Schorr, “Urkundcn des altbab. Ziv. und Prozessrechts,” p. 595. 

3 We know that iluina-ilimi was the contemporary of Abi-eshu’ as well as 
of Samsu-iluna. As die is credited by the King's’ List with a reign of sixty 
years, it is possible, jf we accept that figure, that he had established his 
dynasty in the Sea-Country some years before attacking Larsa. His accession 
has been placed as early as Hammurabi’s twenty-sixth year (of. Thureau- 
Dangin, “Zeits. fur Assyr.,” XXI., pp. 176 ff. ), though the same writer, by 
making a reduction of twenty years in his dates for the Third and Second 
Dynasties, afterwards assumed that he secured his throne in Samsu-iluna’s 
fourth year (op. cit ., p. 185 f.). As we have no evidence that Iluma-ilum was 
Hammurabi’s contemporary, it is safer to place his accession in Samsu-iluna’s 
reign; and, in that case, tlie date- formula for the twelfth year appears to 
offer the most probable occasion for his revolt. 



106 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

some of their reigns. The founder of the dynasty, for 
example, is credited with a reign of sixty years, two 
other rulers with reigns of fifty-five years, and a fourth 
with fifty years. But the average duration of the 
reigns in the dynasty is only six years in excess of 
tha L for the First Dynasty, which also consisted of 
eleven kings. And, in view of the sixty-one years 
credited to Rim-Sin in the newly recovered Larsa List, 
which is a contemporaneous document and not a later 
compilation, we may regard the traditional length of the 
dynasty as perhaps approximately correct . 1 Moreover, in 
all other parts of the Kings’ List that can be controlled 
by contemporaneous documents, the general accuracy of 
the figures has been amply vindicated. The balance 
of evidence appears, therefore, to be in favour of 
regarding the compiler’s estimate for the duration of 
his Second Dynasty as also resting on reliable tradition. 

In working out the chronological scheme it only 
remains therefore to fix accurately the period of the 
First DyWasfy, in order to arrive* at a detailed chrono- 
logy fon. both the earlier and the later periods. 
Hitherto, in default of any other method, it has been 
necessary to rely on the traditions which have come 
down to us from the history of Berossus or on chrono- 
logical references to early rulers which occur in the 
later historical texts. A new method of arriving at the 
date of the First Dynasty, in complete independence of 
such sources of information, was hit upon three years 
ago by Dr. Kugler, the Dutch astronomer, in the 
course of his work on published texts that had any 
bearing on the history and achievements of Babylonian 
astronomy . 2 Two such tablets had been found by Sir 
Henry Layard at Nineveh and were preserved in the 
Kouyunjik Collection of the British Museum. Of 
these one had long been published afid its contents 
correctly classified as a series of astronomical omens 
derived from observations of the planet Venus . 3 It 

1 The figures are probably not absolutely accurate ; see below, p. 201), n. 1. 

2 See bis “ Sternkunde uud Sterndienst in Babel,” 1 < 107-1 JILT 

3 This, the principal text, is numbered K. J(10, and its text was published 
by George Smith in Rawlinson’s “Cun. I user. West. Asia,” 111., pi. (JO. 
Translations and studies have been given of it by Sayre, “ Trans. Soc. Bibl. 
Arch./’ III. (JH74), pp. 01(1 tf. ; by Sayre and Bosampiet, “ Monthly Notices 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 107 

was certain that this Assyrian text was a copy of an 
earlier Babylonian one, since that was definitely stated 
in its colophon. The second of the two inscriptions 
proved to be in part a duplicate , 1 and by using them 
in combination Dr. Kugler was able to restore the 
original text with a considerable degree of certainty . 1 
But a more important discovery was that he succeeded 
in identifying precisely the period at which the text 
was originally drawn up, and the astronomical observa- 
tions recorded. For he noted that in the eighth section 
of his restored text there was a chronological note, 
dating that section hy the old Babylonian date-formula 
for the eighth year of Ammi-zaduga, the tenth king of 
the First Babylonian Dynasty. As his text contained 
twenty-one sections, he drew the legitimate inference 
that it gave him a series of observations of the planet 
Venus for each of the twenty-one years of Ammi- 
zaduga’s reign . 3 

The observations from which the omens were derived 
consist of dates for the heliacal rising and setting of the 
planet Venus. The date was observed at which the 
planet w r as first visible in the east, the date of her dis- 
appearance was noted, and the duration of her period of 
invisibility ; similar dates were then observed of her first 
appearance in the west as the Evening Star, followed 
as before by the dates of her disappearance and her 
period of invisibility. The taking of such observations 
does not, of course, imply ^my elaborate astronomical 
knowledge on the part of the early Babylonians. This 
beautiful planet must have been the first, after the moon, 
to attract systematic observation, and thanks to her 
nearly circular orbit, no water-clock nor instrument 

of tlu» Royal Astronomical Society,’* XL. (1880), p. 50(5 ff. , and by Schiaparelli, 

“ Venusheobachtungen und Be rech million der Babylonier ” (190(5). For other 
references, see Bezold, “Catalogue/’ 1., p. 42. 

1 The second of tlie two inscriptions is numbered K. 2821 + K. 8082, 
and its text lias been published by Craig, Astrological-Astronomical Texts,” 
pi. 4(5 ; cf. also Virollcaud, “ L’Astrologie Chaldeenne,” Islitar X1L, XV. 
and X!V. 

2 Cf. “ Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel,” Buch II., Toil ii., Hft. 1, 
pp. 257 If. In addition to broken passages occurring in the two texts, some 
scribal errors appear to have crept in in the course of transmission. 

3 From contemporary date- formula 1 we know that Ammi-zaduga reigned 
for more than seventeen years. T he Babylonian Kings’ List ascribes him 
twenty-one. 



108 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

for measuring angles was required. The astrologers 
of the period would naturally watch for the planet’s first 
appearance in the glimmer of the dawn, that they might 
read therefrom the will of the great goddess with whom 
she was identified. They would note her gradual ascen- 
sion, decline and disappearance, and then count the days 
of her absence until she reappeared at sunset and re- 
peated her movements of ascension and decline. Such 
dates, with the resulting fortunes of the country, form 
the observations noted in the text that was drawn up 
in Ammi-zaduga’s reign. 

It will be obvious that the periodic return of the 
same appearance of the planet Venus would not in 
itself have supplied us with sufficient means for deter- 
mining the period of the observations. But we obtain 
additional data if we employ our information with the 
further object of ascertaining the relative positions of 
the sun and moon. On the one hand the heliacal 
risings and settings of Venus are naturally bound up 
in a fixed relationship of Venus to the sun ; on the other 
hand the series of dates by the days of the month 
furnishes us with the relative position of the moon with 
regard to the sun on the days cited. Without the second 
criterion, the first would be of very little use. But, taken 
together, the combination of the sun, Venus and the 
moon are of the greatest value for fixing the position of 
the group of years, covered by the observations, within 
any given period 'of a hundred years or more. Now if 
we eliminate the Second Dynasty altogether from the 
Babylonian Kings’ List, it is certain that Ammi-zaduga’s 
reign could not have fallen much later than 1800 n.e. ; 
on the other hand, in view of the ascertained minimum 
of overlapping of the First Dynasty by the Second, it 
is equally certain that it could not have fallen earlier 
than 2000 B.e. The period of his reign must thus he 
sought within the interval between tliese dates. But, 
in order to be on the safe side, Dr. Kugler extended 
both the limits of the period to be examined ; he con- 
ducted his researches within the period from 2080 to 
1740 b.c. He began by taking two observations for 
the sixth year of Ammi-zaduga, which gave the dates 
for the heliacal setting of Venus in the west and her 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 109 

rising in the east, and, by using the days of the month 
to ascertain the relative positions of the moon, he found 
that throughout the whole course of his period this par- 
ticular combination took place three times. 1 He then 
proceeded to examine in the same way the rest of the 
observations, with their dates, as supplied by the two 
tablets, and, by working them out in detail for the 
central one of his three possible periods, he obtained 
confirmation of his view that the observations did cover 
a consecutive period of twenty-one years. In order to 
obtain independent proof of the correctness of his figures, 
he proceeded to examine the dates upon contemporary 
legal documents, which could be brought into direct or 
indirect relation to the time of harvest. These dates, 
according to his interpretation of the calendar, offered 
a means of controlling his results, since he was able to 
show that a higher or lower estimate tended to throw 
out the time of harvest from the month of Nisan, which 
was peculiarly the harvest month. 

It must be admitted that the last part of the 
demonstration stands in a different category to the 
first ; it docs not share the simplicity of the astrono- 
mical problem. It formed, indeed, merely an additional 
method of testing the interpretation of the astronomical 
evidence, and the dates resulting from the latter were 
obtained in complete independence of the farming-out 
contracts of the period. Taking, then, the three alter- 
native dates, there can be mo doubt,* if we accept the 
figure of the Kings’ Hist for the Second Dynasty as 
approximately accurate, that the central of the three 
periods is the only one possible for Ammi-zaduga’s 
reign ; for either of the other two would imply too high 
or too low a date for the Third Dynasty of the Kings’ 
List. We may thus accept the date of 1977 n.c. as 
that of Ammi-zaduga’s accession, and we thereby obtain 
a fixed point for working out the chronology of the 
First Dynasty of Babylon, and, consequently, of the 
partly contemporaneous Dynasties of Larsa and of Nisin, 
and of the still earlier Dynasty of Hr. Incidentally 

1 According to this criterion, Ammi-zaduga’s sixth year could have fallen 
in 20:U)-5 n.c., or in 1972-1 b.c., or in 3859-2 t t.<\, thus giving for his first 
year the three possible dates, 2041-40 n.c., or 1977-0 n.c., or 1958-7 n.c. 



110 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

it assists in fixing within comparatively narrow limits 
the period of the Kassite conquest and of the following 
dynasties of Babylon. 1 Starting from this figure as 
a basis, and making use of the information already 
discussed, it would follow that the Dynasty of Nisin 
was founded in the year 2339 b.c., that of Larsa only 
four years later in 2335 b.c., and the First Dynasty of 
Babylon after a further interval of a hundred and ten 
years in 2225 B.c. 2 

It will have been seen that the suggested system of 
chronology has been settled in complete independence 
of the chronological notices to earlier rulers which have 
come down to us in the inscriptions of some of the later 
Assyrian and Babylonian kings. Hitherto these have 
furnished the principal starting points, on which reliance 
has been placed to date the earlier periods in the history 
of Babylon. In the present case it will be pertinent 
to examine them afresh and ascertain how far they 
harmonize with a scheme which has been evolved with- 
out their help. If they are found to accord very well 
with the new system, we may legitimately see in such 
an agreement additional grounds lor believing we are 
on the right track. Without pinning one’s faith too 
slavishly to any calculation by a native Babylonian 
scribe, the possibility of harmonizing such references 
at least removes a number of difficulties, which it has 
always been necessary either to ignore or to explain away. 

Perhaps the chronological notice which has given 
rise to most discussion is the one in which Nabonidus 
refers to the period of Hammurabi’s reign. On one of 
his foundation-cylinders Nabonidus states that Ham- 
murabi rebuilt E-babbar, the temple of the Sun-god 
in Larsa, seven hundred years before Burna-Buriash . 3 

1 For this purpose it may be user] in conjunction with the later Assyrian 

synchronisms, and with the date of Burna-Buriash as obtained from Egyptian 
sources (see below, p. 111). * 

2 It may be worth while noting that, if we place the whole of Rim-Sin’s 
reign of sixty-one years before Hammurabi’s conquest of Larsa, we raise the 
first two dates given in the text by twenty-two years. On that assumption 
the Dynasty of Nisin would have been founded in 2361 it. c., and that of Larsa 
in 2357 B.c. Consequently the Dynasties of Nisin and of Babylon would have 
overlapped for a period of eighty-nine years, instead of one hundred and 
eleven. But the balance of probability is in favour of the later dates ; see 
above, p. 103, n. 2. 

3 See Bezold, “ Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.,” XI., pp. 94, 99, and pi. iv., 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 111 


At a time when it was not realized that the First and 
Second Dynasties of the Kings’ List were partly con- 
temporaneous, the majority of writers were content to 
ignore the apparent inconsistency between the figures 
of the Kings’ List and this statement of Nabonidus. 
Others attempted to get over the difficulty by emend- 
ing the figures in the List and by other ingenious 
suggestions ; lor it was felt that to leave a discrepancy 
of this sort without explanation pointed to a possibility 
of error in any scheme necessitating such a course . 1 
We will see, then, how far the estimate of Nabonidus 
accords with the date assigned to Hammurabi under 
our scheme. From the Tell el-Amarna letters we 
know that Burna-Buriash was the contemporary of 
Amen-hetep IV., to whose accession most historians of 
Egypt now agree to assign a date in the early part 
of the fourteenth century b.c . 2 We may take 1380 b.c. 
as representing approximately the date which, according 
to the majority of the schemes of Egyptian chronology, 
may be assigned to Amen-hetep IV. ’s accession. And 
by adding seven hundred years to this dale we obtain, 
according to the testimony of Nabonidus, a date for 
Hammurabi of about 2080 b.c. According to our 
scheme the last year of Hammurabi’s reign fell in 
2081 b.c., and, since the seven hundred years of 
Nabonidus is olniously a round number, its general 
agreement with the scheme is remarkably close . 3 

The chronological notice of Nabonidus thus serves 
to confirm, so far as its evidence goes, the general 
accuracy of the date assigned to the First Dynasty. In 


85-4-30, 2, ( ol. II., 11. 20 O’. , and Ilawlinson, “Cun. Itiscr. West. Asia,” I., 69, 
Col. II., 1. 4; c.f. also Langdon, “ Neubabylonischen Kdnigsiiischriften,” 
p. 238 f. 

1 See “ Chronicles,” 1., p. 87 f. 

2 An approximate date of 1430-1400 n.r. is Assigned to him by Budge, 
“History of Egypt,” V'ol. IV., pp. 118 if. ; while his accession is placed in 
1383 b.c. by Petrie, “History of Egypt/' Vol. IJ., pp. 205 if. ; in 1380 
n.o. by Meyer, 44 /Egyptische Chronologic,” p. 6.8, and “ Geschichte/’ I., ii., 
p. 335 f., and Hall, “Ancient History of the Near East,” p. 228; and in 
1375 n.o. by Breasted, “ History of Egypt,” p. 599, and 41 Ancient Records,” 
Vol. 1., p. 43. Maspero implies a date of about 1380 b.c. ; cf. “ Ilistoire 
ancienne/’ II., p. 337, note. 

3 According to Dr. Budge's scheme of chronology, an approximate date 
of 1400 b.c. for Burna-Buriash would yield for Hammurabi a date of c. 2100 b.c, 
(equivalent to his twenty fourth year). 



112 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

the case of the Se :ond Dynasty we obtain an equally 
striking confirmation, when we examine the only avail- 
able reference to the period of one of its kings which is 
found in the record of a later ruler. The passage in 
question occurs upon a boundary-stone preserved in 
the University Museum of Pennsylvania, referring to 
events which took place in the fourth year of Enlil- 
nadin-apli. 1 In the text engraved upon the stone it is 
stated that 696 years separated Gulkishar (the sixth 
king of the Second Dynasty) from Nebuchadnezzar, who 
is of course to be identified with Nebuchadnezzar I., the 
immediate predecessor of Enlil-nadin-apli upon the 
throne of Babylon. Now we know from the “ Syn- 
chronistic History ” that Nebuchadnezzar I. was the 
contemporary of Ashur-resh-ishi, the father of Tiglath- 
pileser I., and if we can establish independently the date 
of the latter’s accession, we obtain approximate dates 
for Nebuchadnezzar and consequently lor Gulkishar. 

In his inscription on the rock at Bavian Sennacherib 
tells us that. 418 years elapsed between the defeat of 
Tiglath-pileser I. by Marduk-nadin-akhc and his own 
conquest of Babylon in 689 b.c. 2 Tiglath-pileser was 
therefore reigning in 1107 b.c., and we know from his 
Cylinder-inscription that this year was not among the 
first five of his reign ; on this evidence the beginning of 
his reign has been assigned approximately to 1120 b.c. 
Nebuchadnezzar I., the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser ’s 
father, may thus* have come to the throne at about 
y 1 140 B.c. ; and, by adding the 696 years to this date, 

' we obtain an approximate date of 1806 b.c. as falling 
within the reign of Gulkishar of the Second Dynasty. * 
This date supports the figures of the Kings’ List, accord- 
ing to which Gulkishar would have been reigning from 
about 1876 to 1822 b.c. But it should be noted that 
the period of 696 years upon the boundary-stone, though 
it has an appearance of great accuracy, was probably 
derived from a round number ; for the stone refers to 
events which took place in Enlil-nadin-apli’s fourth 
year, and the number 696 may have been based upon 

1 See Hilprccht, “Old Babylonian Inscriptions/' Pt. I., pi. 30 f., No. 83; 
cf. also Jensen, “Ze its. fiir Assyr.,” VIII., pp. 220 ff. 

2 Cf. King, “ Tukulti-Ninib I./’ p. 118 f. 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 113 

the estimate that seven hundred years separated Enlil- 
nadin-apli’s reign from that of Gulkishar. It is thus 
probable that the reference should not be regarded as 
more than a rough indication of the belief that a portion 
of Gulkishar ’s reign fell within the second half of the 
nineteenth century. But, even on this lower estimate 
of the figure’s accuracy, its agreement with our scheme 
is equally striking. 

One other chronological reference remains to be 
examined, and that is the record of Ashur-bani-pal, 
who, when describing his capture of Susa in about 
G47 n.c., relates that he recovered the image of the 
goddess Nana, which the Elamite Kudur-Nankhundi 
had carried off from Erecli sixteen hundred and thirty- 
five years before. 1 2 This figure would assign to Kudur- 
Nankhundi’s invasion an approximate date of 2282 it.c. 
As we possess no other reference to, nor record of, an 
early Elamite king of this name, there is no question of 
harmonizing this figure with other chronological records 
bearing on his reign. ‘All that we can do is to ascertain 
whether, according to our chronological scheme, the 
date 2282 B.e. falls within a period during which an 
Elamite king would have been likely to invade Southern 
Babylonia and raid the city of Erech. Tested in this 
way, Ashur-bani-pal's figure harmonizes well enough 
with the chronology, for Kudur-Nankhundi would have 
invaded Babylonia fifty-seven years after a very similar 
Elamite invasion which browght the Dynasty of Ur to 
an end, and gave Nisin her opportunity of securing the 
hegemony." That Elam continued to be a menace 
to Babylonia is sufficiently proved by Kudur-Mabuk’s 
invasion, which resulted in placing his son Warad-Sin 
upon the throne of Larsa in 2143 b.c. It will be noted 
that Ashur-bani-pal’s figure places Ivudur-Nankhundi’s 
raid on Erech in the period between the two most 
notable Elamite* invasions of early Babylonia, of which 
we have independent evidence. 

Another advantage of the suggested chronological 
scheme is that it enables us to clear up some of the 

1 See Rawlinson, “Cun. Inscr. West. Asia,” Vol. III., pi. 38, $o. 1, 
Obv. 1. 1(J. 

2 See below, p. 133. 


X 



114 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

problems presented by the dynasties of Berossus, at least 
so far as concerns the historical period in his system of 
chronology. In a later historian of Babylon we should 
naturally expect to find that period beginning with the 
first dynasty of rulers in the capital ; but hitherto the 
available evidence did not seem to suggest a date that 
could be reconciled with his system. It may be worth 
while to point out that the date assigned under the new 
scheme for the rise of the First Dynasty of Babylon 
coincides approximately with that deduced for the be- 
ginning of the historical period in Berossus. Five of 
the historical dynasties of Berossus. following his first 
dynasty of eighty-six kings who ruled for 34,090 years 
after the Deluge, 1 are preserved only in the Armenian 
version of the Chronicles of Eusebius 2 and are the 
following : — 

Dynasty II., 8 Median usurpers, ruling 224 years ; 3 

Dynasty III., 11 kings, the length of their rule 
wanting ; 4 f 

Dynasty TV., 49 Chaldean kings, ruling 458 years; 

Dynasty V., 9 Arab kings, ruling for 245 years ; 

Dynasty VI., 45 kings, ruling for 526 years. 

It is not quite elear to what stage in the national 
history Berossus intended his sixth dynasty to extend ; 6 
and in any case, the fact that the figure is wanting for 
the length of his third dynasty, renders their total dura- 
tion a matter of* uncertainty. But, in spite of these 


1 That Berossus depended on native lists of rulers in compiling his first 
dynasty of semi-mythical kings has been strikingly confirmed by documents 
discovered recently in the Niffer Collection of tablets preserved in the 
Pennsylvania Museum. These have been published by Poebel, “ Univ. of 
Pennsyl. Mus. Publications,” Vol. IV'., No. 1, and Vol. V., and the new 
information they furnish is of great interest for the earlier history. It may be 
noted that the figure 34,000 is that given for the duration of the dynasty in 
Syncellus (ed. Dindorf, p. 147) ; in the equivalent in gar*, etc., which is added 
(i.e. 0 gars , 2 Tiers, and 3 sons = 34,080 years), it is probable that the units are 
intentionally ignored, though some would regard 34,080 as the correct figure 
(see below, p. 115). In Eusebius (“ Chron. lib. I.,” ed. Schoene, Col. 25) the 
figure is 33,001 (probably a mistake for 34,001) ; this figure at any rate con- 
firms the reading of ninety (against eighty) in Syncellus, cf. Meyer, t( Beitrage 
zur alten (Jeschichte (Klio),” III., p. 133; and see further, p. 116 f., n. 5. 

2 Eusebius, “Chron. lib. I./' ed. Schoene, Col. 25 ; see also Schwartz ill 
Pauly-Wissowa, “ Ileal -Encyclopadie,” 111. (i.), Col. 311. 

3 In margin of MSS. 34 years. 

4 In margin of MSi>. 48 years. 6 See further, p. 116 i. 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 115 

drawbacks, a general agreement has been reached as 
to a date for the beginning of his historical period, based 
on considerations independent of the figures in detail. 
A. von Gutschmid’s suggestion that the kings after the 
Deluge were grouped by Berossus in a cycle of ten sars, 
i.e. 30,000 years, 1 furnished the key that has been used 
for solving the problem. For, if the first dynasty be 
subtracted from this total, the remaining number of 
years would give the total length of the historical 
dynasties. Thus, if we take the length of the first 
dynasty as 34,090 years, the duration of the historical 
dynasties is seen to have been 1910 years. Now the 
statement attributed to Abydenus by Eusebius, to the 
effect that the Chaldeans reckoned their kings from 
Alorus to Alexander, 2 * 4 * has led to the suggestion that 
the period of 1910 years was intended to include the 
reign of Alexander the Great (331-323 B.c.). If there- 
fore we add 1910 years to 322 B.c., we obtain 2232 B.c. 
as the beginning of thg historical period with which the 
second dynasty of Berossus opened. It may be added 
that the same result has been arrived at by taking 
34,080 years as the length of his first dynasty, 8 and by 
extending the historical period of 1920 years down to 
312 b.c., the beginning of the Seleucid Era. 

Incidentally it may be noted that this date has been 
harmonized with the figure assigned in the margin of 
some manuscripts as representing tlje length of the 
third dynasty of Berossus. It has usually been held 
that his sixth dynasty ended with the predecessor of 
Nabonassar upon the throne of Babylon, and that the 
following or seventh dynasty would have begun in 
747 b.c. But it has been pointed out that, after 
enumerating the dynasties II.-VI., Eusebius goes on 
to say that after these rulers came a king of the 
Chaldeans whose, name was Phulus 4 ; and this phrase 
has been explained as indicating that the sixth dynasty 

1 Those before the Deluge are said to have reigned for a hundred and 
twenty mrs 9 i.e. 432,000 years. 

2 Eusebius, iS Chron. lib. 1.,” ed. Sclioene, Col. f>3 : “ Hoc pacto Klialdwi 
buses regiouis reges ah Aloro usque ad Alexandrum receuscnt.” 

8 See above p 114, u 1* 

4 ‘'Chron. lib. ed. Schoene, Col. 25: “ post, q nos, inquit (sc. Poly- 

his tor), rex Chaldseorum extitit, cui nomen Phulus est.” 



116 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


of Berossus ended at the same point as the Ninth 
Babylonian Dynasty, in 732 b.c., that is to say, with 
the reign of Nabu-shum-ukin, the contemporary of 
Tiglath-pileser IV,, whose original name of Pulq ,i \s 
preserv ed in the Babylonian List of Kings. Thus tlfe 
seventh dynasty of Berossus would have begun with the 
reign of the usurper Ukin-zer, who was also the con- 
temporary of Tiglath-pileser. 1 On this supposition the 
figure “ forty-eight," which occurs in the margin of 
certain manuscripts of the Armenian version of Euse- 
bius, 2 may be retained for the number of years assigned 
by Berossus to his third dynasty. 3 A further confirma- 
tion of the date 2232 b.c. for the beginning of the 
historical period of Berossus has been found in a state- 
ment derived from Porphyrins, to the effect that, 
according to Callisthenes, the Babylonian records of 
astronomical observations extended over a period of 
1903 years down to the time of Alexander of Maced on. 4 
Assuming that the reading 1903 js correct, the observa- 
tions would have extended back to 2233 b.c., a date 
differing by only one year from that obtained for the 
beginning of Berossus’ historical dynasties. 

Thus there are ample grounds for regarding the 
date 2232 a.e. as representing the beginning of the his- 
torical period in the chronological system of Berossus; 6 
and we have already noted that in a late Babylonian 
historian, writing during 4 the Hellenistic period, we 
should expect the beginning of his history, in the 
stricter sense of the term, to coincide with the first 
recorded dynasty of Babylon, as distinct from rulers 
of other and earlier city-states. It will be observed that 
this date is only seven years out with that obtained 
astronomically by Dr. Kugler for the rise of the First 

1 That is to say, at the point marked by the group Xty^pos n<£/>os in the 
Ptolemaic ('anon. l T kin-zer is an abbreviation of Nabu-m ukin-zer. 

2 See above, p. 114, n. 4. 

3 ( f. Meyer, “ Beitr'age zur alten Gesehichte (Klio),” III., pp. 131 ff. 

4 The statement occurs in the commentary of Simplicius upon Aristotle’s 
“ De Caelo,” and the Greek text reads 31 ,000 ; of. ed. Heiberg, p. f>(K’>, But 
in a Latin translation by Moerbeka the figure is given as 1003, and this 
probably represents the original reading; cf. Lehmann-IIaupt, “ Zwei 
Hauptprobleine,” pp. 109 f., 210, and Meyer, op. cit ., p. 131. 

6 The Pennsylvania documents published by Poebel (see above, p. 114, 
n. 1) suggest that variant traditions were current with regard to the number 
of mythical and semi- mythical rulers of Babylonia and the duration of their 



THE CHRONOLOGICAL SCHEME 117 

Dynasty of Babylon. Now the astronomical demon- 
stration relates only to the reign of Ammi-zaduga, who 
was the tenth king of the First Dynasty ; and to obtain 
tfit date 2225 b.c. for Sumu-abum’s accession, reliance is 
naturally placed on figures for the intermediate reigns 
which are supplied by the contemporaneous date-lists. 
But the Babylonian Kings’ List gives figures which 
were current in the Neo-Babylonian period ; and, by 
employing it in place of contemporaneous records, we 
obtain the date 2229 b.c. for Sumu-abum’s accession, 
which presents a discrepancy of only three years to 
that deduced from Berossus. In view of the slight 
inconsistencies with the Kings’ List which we find in 
at least one of the late chronicles, it is clear that the 
native historians, who compiled their records during the 
later periods, found a number of small variations in 
the chronological material on which they had to rely. 
While there was probably agreement on the general 
lines of the later chronology, the traditional length of 
some reigns and dynasties might vary in different docu- 
ments by a few years. We may conclude therefore 
that the evidence of Berossus, so far as it can be recon- 
stituted from the summaries preserved in other works, 
may be harmonized with the date obtained independently 
for the First Dynasty of Babylon. 

The new information, which has been discussed in 
this chapter, has enabled us to carry further than was 
previously possible the process of Reconstructing the 
chronology ; and we have at last been able to connect 
the earlier epochs in the country’s history with those 
which followed the rise of Babylon to power. On the 
one hand we have obtained definite proof of the over- 
lapping of further dynasties with that of the West 
Semitic kings of Babylon. On the other hand, the 
consequent reduction in date is more than compensated 
by new evidence pointing to the probability of a period 
of independent rule in Babylonia on the part of some 

rule. For instance, in two of tlie lists drawn up under the Nisin kings, and 
separated from one another hy an interval of only sixty-seven years, the total 
duration of the preceding dynasties appears to he given in oue as and 

in the other as 2K,870 years. But this fact does not, of course, prevent the 
use of the figures which have come to us from Berossus, in order to ascertain 
the beginning of the historical period in the system he employed. 



118 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

of the Sea-Country kings. The general effect of the 
new discoveries is thus of no revolutionary character. 
It has resulted, rather, in local rearrangements, which 
to a considerable extent are found to counterbalance 
one another in their relation to the chronological 
scheme as a whole. Perhaps the most valuable result 
of the regrouping is that we are furnished with the 
material for a more detailed picture of the gradual rise 
of Babylon to power. We shall see that the coming 
of the Western Semites effected other cities than 
Babylon, and that the triumph of the invaders marked 
only the closing stage of a long and varied struggle. 



CHAPTER IV 

THE WESTERN SEMITES AND THE FIRST DYNASTY 
OF BA BYI.ON 

T HE rise of Babylon to a position of pre-eminence 
among the warring dynasties of Sumer and 
Akkad may be regarded as sealing the final 
triumph of the Semite over the Sumerian. His survival 
in the long racial contest was due to the reinforcements 
he received from men of his own stock, whereas the 
Sumerian population,* when once settled in the country, 
was never afterwards renewed. The great Semitie 
wave, under which the Sumerian sank and finally dis- 
appeared, reached the Euphrates from the coast-lands 
of the Eastern Mediterranean. But the Amurru, or 
Western Semites, like their predecessors in Northern 
Babylonia, had come originally from Arabia. For it 
is now generally recognized that the Arabian peninsula 
was the first home and crfldle of the Semitic peoples. 
Arabia, like the plains of Central Asia, was, in fact, 
one of the main breeding-grounds of the human race, 
and during the historic period we may trace four great 
migrations of Semitic nomad tribes, which succes- 
sively broke away from the northern margin of the 
Arabian pasture-lands and spread over the neighbouring 
countries like a flood. The first great racial movement 
of the kind is that of which the effects were chiefly 
apparent in Akkad, or Northern Babylonia, where the 
Semites first obtained a footing when overrunning the 
valley of the Tigris and Euphrates. The second is dis- 
tinguished from the first, as the Canaanite or Amorite, 
since it gave to Canaan its Semitic inhabitants ; but 
how long an interval separated the one movement from 
the other it is impossible to say. The process may well 



120 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

have been a continuous one, with merely a change in 
the direction of advance ; but it is convenient to dis- 
tinguish them by their effects as separate movements, 
the semitization of Canaan following that of Babylonia, 
but at the same time contributing to its complete 
success. Of the later migrations we are not for the 
moment concerned, and in any case only one of them 
falls within the period of this history. That was the 
third great movement, which began in the fourteenth 
century and has been termed the Aramean from the 
kingdom it established in Syria with its capital at 
Damascus. The fourth, and last, took place in the 
seventh century of our own era, when the armies of 
Islam, after conquering Western Asia and Northern 
Africa, penetrated even to South- Western Europe. It 
was by far the most extensive of the four in the area 
it covered, and, in spite of being the last of the series, 
it illustrates the character and methods of the earlier 
movements in their initial stages, when the desert 
nomad, issuing in force from his' own borders, came 
within the area of settled civilization. 

It is true that great tracts of Central Arabia are 
to-day quite uninhabitable, but there is reason to believe 
that its present condition of aridity was not so marked 
in earlier periods. AVe have definite proof of this in 
the interior of Southern Arabia, where there is still a 
belt of comparatively fertile country between the flat 
coastal regions and the sttep mountain range, that 
forms the southern boundary of the central plateau. 1 
On the coast itself there is practically no rainfall, 
and even on the higher slopes away from the coast 
it is very scanty. Here the herds of goats frequently 
go without water for many weeks, and they have learnt 
to pull up and chew the fleshy roots of a species of 
cactus to quench their thirst. But further still inland 
there is a broad belt of country, which 'is marvellously 
fertile and in a high state of cultivation. The rainfall 
there is regular during a portion of the year, the country 
is timbered, and the main mountain range, though 
possessing no towns of any size, is thickly dotted with 


Cf. Hogarth, “ The Penetration of Arabia,” j»p. 200 ff 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 121 

strong fighting towers, which dominate the well-farmed 
and flourishing villages. To the north of the range, 
beyond the cultivation, is a belt roamed over by the 
desert-nomads with their typical black tents of woven 
goat-hair, and then comes the central desert, a region 
of rolling sand. But here and there the ruins of 
palaces and temples may still be seen rising from the 
sand or built on some slight eminence above its level. 

At the time of the Sab;ean kingdom, as early as the 
sixth century u.c., this region of Southern Arabia must 
have been i'ar more fertile than it is at the present 
day. The shifting sand, under the driving pressure of 
the simoom, doubtless played its part in overwhelming 
tracts of cultivated country ; but that alone cannot 
account for the changed conditions. The researches of 
Stein, Pumpelly, Huntington and others have shown 
the results of desiccation in Central Asia , 1 and it is 
certain that a similar diminution of the rainfall has 
taken place in the interior of Southern Arabia . 2 To 
such climatic changes, which seem, according to the 
latest theories, to occur in recurrent cycles , 3 we may 
probably trace the great racial migrations from Central 
Arabia, which have given their inhabitants to so many 
countries of Western Asia and North Africa. 

It is possible to form a very clear picture of the 
Semite who issued from this region, for the life of the 
pastoral nomad, all the world over, is the same . 4 And 
even at the present day, ii r the holldws of the Arabian 
desert, there is enough deposit of moisture to allow 
of a sufficient growth of grass for pasture-lands, capable 
of supporting nomadic tribes, who move with their 
flocks of sheep and goats from one more favoured area 

1 Of. u Sumer and Akkad,” pp. 052 ff. 

2 An interesting confirmation of this view has keen made by General P. J. 
Maitland. He points out that the great tanks at Aden, which were hewn out 
of the solid rock in cv.rly Klimyarite if not in JSahiean times, are at the present 
day absolutely dry for four years out of five, and that the heaviest rainfalls 
since they were discovered and cleared out have not filled them to an eighth 
part of their capacity ; cf. his preface to G. YV. Bury’s “ Land of Hz,” p. xii. f. 

3 It lias been established that these pulsations of climatic change apply to 
all the great inland steppes upon the earth’s surface, periods of maximum 
moisture being followed by long intervals of comparative aridity ; see espe- 
cially, Huntington, “The Pulse of Asia” (1007). 

4 On this subject, see especially My res, ‘*The Dawn of History, pp. 
10 ff., 104 ff. 



122 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

to another. The life of such a nomad is forced into 
one mould by the conditions imposed by the desert ; 
for the grass-land cannot support him and he must 
live on the milk and young of his flocks. He is purely 
a shepherd, carrying with him the simplest and lightest 
tents, tools, and weapons for his needs. The type of 
society is that of the patriarchal family, for each nomad 
tribe consists of a group of relatives ; and, under the 
direction of their chief, not only the men of the clan, 
but the women and children, all take an active part in 
tending the flocks and in practising the simple arts of 
skin-curing and the weaving of hair and wool. So long 
as the pasture-lands can support his flocks, the nomad 
is content to leave the settled agriculturist beyond the 
desert edge in peace. Some of the semi-nomad tribes 
upon the margin of the cultivation may engage in 
barter with their more civilised neighbours, and even 
at times demand subsidies for leaving their crops in 
peace. But the bulk of the tribes would normally 
remain within* their own area, while conditions existed 
which were capable of supplying the needs of their 
simple life. It is when the pasture lands dry up that 
the nomad must leave his own area or perish, and it is 
then that he descends upon the cultivation and pro- 
ceeds to adapt himself to new conditions, should he 
conquer the settled races whose higher culture he him- 
self absorbs. 

While still held 1 within tile grip of the desert, there 
was never any prospect of his development or advance 
in civilization. The only great changes that have taken 
place in the life of the Arabian nomad have been due to 
the introduction of the horse and the camel. But these 
have merely increased his mobility, while leaving the 
man himself unchanged. The Arabs of the seventh 
century b.c., depicted in the reliefs ,from Nineveh 
as fleeing on their camels before the advance of the 
Assyrians, can have differed in no essential feature from 
their earliest predecessors, who made their way to the 
Euphrates valley on foot or with only the ass as a beast 
of burden. For, having once succeeded in domesti- 
cating his flocks and in liv ing by their means upon the 
rolling steppes of pasture-land, the nomad’s needs are 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 123 

fully satisfied, and his ways of life survive through 
succeeding generations. He cannot accumulate posses- 
sions, as he must be able to carry all his goods con- 
tinually with him, and his knowledge of the uneventful 
past is derived entirely from oral tradition. The earliest 
inscriptions recovered in Arabia are probably not anterior 
to the sixth century u.c., and they were naturally not the 
work of nomads, but of Semitic tribes who had forsaken 



Fi<* 32. * 

ARABS OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY B.C # 

Prom a sculpture of the reign of Ashur-bani-pal in the Nineveh Gallery of the 
British Musourn. 

their wanderings for the settled life of village and town- 
ship in the more hospitable regions of the south. 

The Amurru, or Western Semites, to whose incursion 
into Babylonia the rise of Babylon itself was directly 
due, had long abandoned a nomadic existence, and in 
addition to the higher standards of the agriculturist had 
acquired a civilization which had been largely influenced 
by that of Babylonia. Thanks to the active policy of 
excavation, carried out during the last twenty-five years 
in Palestine, we are enabled to reconstruct the con- 
ditions of life which prevailed in that country from a 



124 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


very early period. It is, in fact, now possible to trace 
the successive stages of Canaanite civilization back to 
neolithic times. Rude flint implements of the paleo- 
lithic or Older Stone Age have also been found on the 
surface of the plains of Palestine, where they had lain 
since the close of the glacial epoch. But at that time 
the climate and character of the Mediterranean lands 
were very different to their present condition ; and a 
great break of unknown length then occurs in the 



ARABS OF THE SEVENTH CENTURY B.C. 

From a sculpture of the reign of Ashur-bani-pal iu the Nineveh Gallery of the 
British Museum. 


cultural sequence, which separates that primaeval period 
from the neolithic or Later Stone Age. It is to this 
second era that we may trace the real beginnings of 
Canaanite civilization. For, from that time onwards, 
there is no break in the continuity of culture, and each 
age was the direct heir of that which preceded it. 

The neolithic inhabitants of Canaan, whose imple- 
ments of worked and polished stone mark a great 





THE WESTERN SEMITES 


125 


advance upon the rough flints of their remote prede- 
cessors, belonged to the short, dark-skinned race which 
spread itself over the shores of the Mediterranean. 
Dwelling in rude huts, they employed for household 
use rough vessels of kneaded clay which they fashioned 
by hand and baked in the fire. They lived chiefly by 
the cattle and flocks they had domesticated, and, to 
judge by their clay spindle-whorls, they practised a 
simple form of weaving, and began to clothe them- 
selves with cloth in place of skins. Over these primitive 
inhabitants a fresh tide of migration swept, probably in 
the early part of the third millennium b.c. The new- 
comers were Semites from Arabia, of the same stock 
as those nomadic hordes who had already overrun 
Babylonia and had established themselves in a great 
part of that country. After they had settled in Canaan 
and Syria they were known to the Babylonians as the 
Amurru or Amorites. They were taller and more 
vigorous than the neolithic Canaanites, and they seem 
to have brought with* them a knowledge* of the use of 
metal, acquired probably by traffic with southern 
Babylonia . 1 The flint arrows and knives of their 
enemies would have had little chance against weapons 
of copper and bronze. But, whether helped by their 
superior armament or not, they became the dominant 
race in Canaan. By intermarrying with their predeces- 
sors they produced the Canaanites of history, a people 
of Semitic speech, but with a varying admixture in 
their blood of the dark-skinned Mediterranean race of 
lower type. 

Such in origin was the Canaanite branch of the 
Western Semites, and it may be worth while to glance 
for a moment at the main features of their culture as 
revealed by excavation in Palestine . 2 One thing stands 


1 This view seems to ho more probable than the assumption that the 
Semitic inhabitants of Canaan learnt the use of metal after their first period 
of settlement. 

2 For the more imjKirtant monographs on the subject, see Macalister, 
“The Excavation ofiiezer” (11)12), and Bliss and Macalister, “Excavations 
in Palestine during the years 181MM900” (11)02), both issued by the Palestine 
Exploration Fund ; Sellin, “ Tell TVannek,” published by the Vienna 
Academy in its “ Denkschriften,” Phil. -Hist. Kl., Bd. 50, No. 4 (11)04), and 
“ Einc Naclilese auf deni Tell Ta‘annek in Palastina,” ibid., Bd. 52, No. 3 
(1900); Schumacher, “Tell el-Mutesellini/’ published by the “Jleutscher 



126 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

out clearly : they revolutionized conditions of life in 
Canaan. The rude huts of the first settlers were super- 
seded by houses of brick and stone, and, in place of 
villages, cities rose surrounded by massive walls. The 
city-wall of Gezer was more than thirteen feet thick 
and was defended by strong towers. That of Megiddo 
was twenty-six feet in thickness, and its foot was further 
protected by a slope, or glacis, of beaten earth. To 
secure their water-supply in time of siege, the arrange- 
ments were equally thorough. At Gezer, for example, 
a huge tunnel was found, hewn in the solid rock, which 
gave access to an abundant spring of water over ninety 
feet below the surface of the ground. Not only had 
the earlier nomad adopted the agricultural life, but he 
soon evolved a system of defence for his settlements, 
suggested by the hilly character of his new country and 
its ample supply of stone . 1 Not less remarkable is the 
light thrown by the excavations on details of Canaanite 
worship. The centre of each town was the high place, 
where huge monoliths were eredted, some of them, 
when unearthed, still worn and polished by the kisses 
of their worshippers. At Gezer ten such monoliths 
were discovered in a row, and it is worth noting that 
they were erected over a sacred cave of the neolithic 
inhabitants, proving that the ancient sanctuary was 
taken over by the Semitic invaders. The religious 
centres inherited by the Baalim, or local “ Lords ” of 
Canaanite worship, had evidently been sanctified by 
long tradition. In the soil beneath the high places 
both at Gezer and at Megiddo numbers of jars were 

Palastina Verein” in 1908 ; and Sellin and Watzinger, “Jericho/* a volume 
issued by the “Deutsche Oricnt-Gesellschaft ” in its “ Wissenschaftliche 
Verbffentlich ungen,” Hft. 22 (1918). For further references and a useful 
summary of the archaeological results, see Driver, “ Modern Research as 
illustrating the Bible” (Schweich Lectures, 1908), pp. 40 ff. ; for later sum- 
maries, see especially Sayce, “Patriarchal Palestine,” new ed. (1912), pp. 
233 ff., and Handcock, “Latest Light on Bible Lands/’ 1913; and for an 
estimate of artistic achievement, cf. Hall, “Ancient History of the Near 
East” (1913), pp. 440 ff. On the racial character of the earliest inhabitants 
of Canaan, see especially Sergi, “The Mediterranean Race*’ (1901). 

1 There are few data for estimating the period at which these centres of 
population were first fortified. There is no doubt that the city-walls are long 
anterior to the Egyptian conquest, and from the accumulation of dkbri * in the 
lower strata they have been provisionally placed at an early period in the 
third millennium b.c. ; in any case they preceded the age of the First Babylonian 
Dynasty. 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 127 

found containing the bodies of children, and we may 
probably see in this fact evidence of infant-sacrifice, 
the survival of which into later periods is attested by 
Hebrew tradition. In the cultural remains of these 
Semitic invaders a distinct development is discernible. 
During the earlier period there is scarcely a trace of 
foreign influence, but later on we find importations 
from both Babylonia and Egypt. 

It is but natural that southern and central Canaan 
should have long remained inaccessible to outside in- 
fluence, and that the effects of Babylonian civilization 
should have been confined at first to eastern Syria and 
to the frontier districts scattered along the middle 
course of the Euphrates. Recent digging by natives 
so far to the north as the neighbourhood of Carchemish, 
for example, have revealed some remarkable traces of 
connexion with Babylonia at a very early period . 1 In 
graves at Hammam, a village on the Euphrates near 
the mouth of the Sajur, cylinder-seals were found which 
exhibit unmistakable 'analogies to very early Babylonian 
work ; 1 and the use of this form of seal at a period 
anterior to the First Dynasty of Babylon is in itself 
proof that Babylonian influence had reached the frontier 
of Syria by the great trade-route up the course of the 
Euphrates, along which the armies of Sargon of Akkad 
had already marched in their raid to the Mediterranean 
coast . 3 It is not improbable, too, that Carchemish 

1 The evidence has been recovered in connexion with the excavations at 
Carchemish, conducted by Mr. Hogarth for the British Museum. For dis- 
cussions of the problems presented by the main excavation, see his volume 
on “Carchemish” (1914), and “ Hittite Problems and the excavation of 
Carchemish,” in the “Proceedings of the British Academy,” Vol. V. The 
results of recent native digging in neighbouring mounds have been recovered 
on the snot by his assistants Messrs. Woolley and Lawrence, and Mr. Woolley 
has published an account of them in a paper on “ Hittite Burial Customs,” 
in the Liverpool “Annals of Archaeology,” YT., No. 4 (1914), pp. 87 ff. 

2 In view of the haphazard nature of the native diggings, the absence of 
cylinder-seals on some neighbouring sites is not to be taken as necessarily dis- 
proving Babylonian influence there. At Amarna, for example, some eight 
miles to the south of Jcrablus, no seals nor cylinders are reported to have 
been found, hut at Kara Kuzal, on the Mesopotamian side of the Euphrates 
opposite Hammam, where the pottery is of the Amarna type, two cylinder- 
seals of a later period and probably of local manufacture were recovered ; 
they arc engraved in the style classified bv Mr. Woolley as “the Syrian 
Geometric” (op. cit ., p. 912). The find is also of interest as proving the 
assimilation of the cylindrical form of seal, which had then ceased to be merely 
a foreign import. 

8 Cf. “Sumer and Akkad,” p. 233 f. 



128 HlSTOBV OF BABYXON 

herself sent her- own products at this time to Babylon, 
for one class of her localpottery at any rate appears to 
hare been valued by other races and to have formed an 
article of export. At the time of the later kings of the 
First Dynasty a special kind of large clay vessel, in use 
in Northern Babylonia, was known as “ a Carchemisian,” 
and was evidently manufactured at Carchemish and 
exported.’ The trade was no doubt encouraged by the 
close relations established under Hammurabi and his 
successors with the West, but its existence points to the 
possibility of still earlier commercial intercourse, such 
as would explain the occurrence of archaic Babylonian 
cylinder-seals in early graves in the neighbourhood. 

But, apart from such trade relations, there is nothing 
to suggest that the early culture of Carchemish and its 
adjacent districts had been effected to any great extent 
by that of Babylon, nor is there any indication that the 
inhabitants of the early city were Semites. Indeed, 
the archaeological evidence is entirely in favour of the 
opposite view. The bronze age at Carchemish and its 
neighbourhood is distinguished from the preceding 
period by the use of metal, by different burial customs, 
and by new types of pottery, and must be regarded as 
marking the advent of a foreign people. But through- 
out the bronze age itself at Carchemish, from its begin- 
ning in the third millennium to its close in the eleventh 
century B.c., there is a uniform development . 2 There 
is no sudden outcrop of new types such as had marked 
its own beginning, and, since in its later periods it was 
essentially Hittite, we may assume that it was neither 
inaugurated nor interrupted by the Semites. Its earlier 
representatives, before the great Hittite migration from 
Anatolia, may well have been a branch of that proto- 
Mitannian stock, itself possibly of Anatolian origin, 
evidence of whose presence we shall note at Ashur 
before the rise of Babylon’s First Dynasty . 3 

1 One of these large vessels is mentioned in an inventory among the belong- 
ings of a votary of the Sun-god, of which we possess two copies dating from 
the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon ; see “ Cun. Texts in the Brit. 
Mus.,” II., pi. 1, Obv., 1. 8, and pi. 6, 1. 11 ; and cf. Hogarth, “ Carchemish , M 
p. 17. The vessel was of large size, as it is stated to have been of two-thirds 
of a gur , the greatest Babylonian measure of capacity ; it may have been used 
for grain. 

3 Cf. Woolley, op. cit., pp. 88 f., 92 ff. 3 See below, pp. 137 ff. 






" ^<5rftE WEgtERN SEMITES' 129. 

<d%^lu^nish Mes jptofthe directr4ad from Babylon 
to Nnttf&rn Syria, ana it is remarkable that any trace 
of early Babylonian influence should have been found 
so far to the north as the mouth of the Sajur. It is 
farther down stream, after the Euphrates has turned 
i ila&tward towards its junction with the Khabur, that 
we should expect to find evidence of a more striking 
character ; and it is precisely there, along the river 
route from Syria to Akkad, that we have recovered 
definite proof, at the time of the First Dynasty of 
Babylon, of the existence of Amorite or West- Semitic 
settlements with a culture that was Babylonian in its 
essential features. The evidence is drawn mainly from 

S ie district, the kingdom of Khana, which lay not far 
otfi the mouth of the Khabur. One of the chief 
towns, and probably the capital of the kingdom, was 
Tirka, the site of which probably lay near Tell ‘Ashar 
or Tell ‘Ishar, a place situated between Der ez-Z6r 
and Sali iya and about four hours from the latter. 
The identification is certain, since an Assyrian inscrip- 
tion of the ninth century was found there, recording 
the rebuilding of the local temple which is stated in the 
text to have been “ in Tirka.” 1 From about this region 
three tablets have also been recovered, all dating from 
the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon and throwing 
considerable light on the character of West Semitic 
culture in a district within the reach of Babylonian 
influence. • * 

One of these documents records a deed of gift by 
which Isharlim, a king of Khana, conveys to one of his 
subjects a house in a village within the district of Tirka. 2 
On a second document is inscribed a similar deed of gift 
by which another king of the same district, Ammi-bail, 
the son of Shunu’-rammu, bestows two plots of land on 
a certain Pagirum, described as “ his servant,” evidently 

1 Cf. ( ondamin, “ Zcits. fur Assyr.,” XXI. (HUM). pp. 2-17 ff. The votive 
inscription was drawn up l>y Shamshi-Adad IV. 

- a See Thureau-Dangin, “Rev. d’ Assyr,” IV. (181)8), p. 8f> f. , and pi. 
xxxii., No. 85, and Scliorr, tf Urkundeu dcs altbabylonischen Zivil- und 
Prozessreehts,” p. 302 f. Roth Tliureau-Dangin and Pngnad (“ Rcitr. z. 
Assyr.,” V]., No. 5, p. 2(>) had regarded it as a deed of sale, hut the ten 
manehs mentioned in the text is not a sale-price but a fine to be imposed 
for any infringement of the deed. 

K 



130 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

in return for faithful service ; 1 and, as one of the plots 
was in Tirka. it is probable that the deed was drawn up 
in that city. The third document is perhaps the most 
interesting of the three, since it contains a marriage- 
contract and is dated in the reign of a king who bears 
the name of Hammurabih. This last ruler has by some 
been confidently regarded as identical with Hammurabi 
of the First Dynasty of Babylon, and it has been 
assumed that it was drawn up at a time when lvhana 
had been conquered and annexed by that monarch, of 
whose advance into that region we have independent 
evidence . 2 But since the tablet appears to be the 
latest of the three, it is clear that Kliana had been sub- 
ject to Babylonian influence long before Hammurabi’s 
conquest. And, even if we regard Hammurabih as no 
more than a local king of Khana, the document has 
furnished us with a West-Semitic variant of Hammu- 
rabi’s name, or one that is closely parallel to it. 

The remarkable fact about all these texts is that they 
are drawn up in the style of le£al documents of the 
period of the First Dynasty of Babylon. But, while the 
terminology is much the same, it has been adapted to 
local conditions. The early Babylonian method of 
dating by events 3 has been taken over, but the formulae 
are not those in use at this period in Babylonia, but 
are peculiar to the kingdom of Khana. Thus the first 
deed of gift is dated in the year when Isharlim, the king, 
built the great gjite of the palace in the city of Kash- 
dakh ; the second was drawn up in the year in which 
Ammi-bai'l, the king, ascended the throne in his father’s 
house ; while the marriage-contract is dated in the year 
that Hammurabih, the king, opened the canal Khabur- 
ibal-bugash from the city of Zakku-Isharlim to the city 
of Zakku-Igitlim . 4 * * * The names of the months, too, are 

1 See Urignad, “ Vorderasiat. Schriftdenkmiiler,.” VII., No. 204, and 
“ Beitr. z. Assyr.,” VI., No. 5 (1909), pp. 20 ff. 'The tablet was purchased 
by Prof. Sarre at Dcr cz-Zdr, and is said to have been found at Rahaba some 
hours to the south-east of the mouth of the Khabur. 

2 See below, pp. 157, 159; Hammurabi also bore the title “ King of 

Aimirru” (cf. “ Letters,” III., p. 195). 8 Sec below, p. 190 f. 

4 The city of Zakku-Isharlim may have derived the second part of its name 

from the king referred to in the first deed of gift ; in that case lgitlim may 

perhaps have been the name of another king of Khana. The canal evidently 

supplied one of the cities with water from the Khabftr. The last element in 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 131 

not those of Babylon , 1 and we find evidence that local 
laws and customs were in force. Each of the deeds of 
gift, for example, provides that any infringement of the 
rights bestowed by the king is to be punished by a 
money-fine of ten manehs of silver, and in addition the 
delinquent is to undergo the quaint but doubtless very 
painful process of having his head tarred with hot tar. 
From the list of witnesses we gather that the com- 
munity was already organized much on the lines of a 
provincial district of Babylonia. For, though we find a 
cultivator or farmer occupying an important position, 
we meet also a superintendent of the merchants, another 
of the bakers, a chief judge, a chief seer, and members 
of the priesthood. It is interesting, too, to note that 
the kings of Khana were still great landowners, to judge 
from the fact that the lands conveyed in the deeds of 
gift were surrounded on almost every side by palace- 
property. At the same time the chief gods of Khana 
are associated with the king in the oath-formula?, since 
the royal property was also regarded as the property of 
the Ba’al, or divine “ Lord” of the soil. 

The two chief Baalim or “ Lords” of Khana were 
the Sun-god and the West-Semitie deity, Dagon. The 
latter is constantly referred to in the documents under 
the Babylonian form of his name, Dagan. He stood 
beside Shamash on the royal seal and in the local oath- 
formula', and is associated in the latter with Iturmer, 
who may well have been the old local god of Tirka. 
deposed after the invasion of the Semites. His temple 
in Tirka, which we know survived until the ninth 
century , 2 was probably the chief shrine of the city, and 
the great part he played in the national life is attested 
by the constant occurrence of his title as a component 
part of personal names . 3 Later evidence proves that 

its name is suggestive of Kassite influence, and the script of this document 
points to a period rather later than that of Hammurabi ; for its publication, 
see .Johns, “Proc. Soe. Bihl. Arch.,” XXIX. (1907), pp. 177 If. 

1 They are the months Teritum, Kinunu, and Birizzarru. For other West- 
Semitic month-names, cf. (i Letters of Hammurabi,” p. xxxvi. f., n. ; 
the majority of the “ seltenere IVlonatsnamcn,’ , referred to by Schorr, 
“ Urkunden,” p. 577, are to be included in this category. 

2 The votive inscription of Shamshi Adad IV. (see above, p. 129, n. 1) 
records its restoration. 

3 We find at Khana such personal names as Amursha-Dagan, Iazi-llagan, 



132 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

Dagon was peculiarly the god of Ashdod, and the 
princely writer of two of the letters from Tell el- 
Amarna, who bore the name Dagan-takala, must have 
ruled some district of northern or central Canaan. The 
Khana documents prove that already at the time of the 
First Dynasty his cult was established on the Euphrates, 
and, in new of this fact, the occurrence of two early 
kings of the Babylonian Dynasty of Nisin with the names 
of Idin-Dagan and Islmie-Dagan is certainly significant. 
We know, too, that the original home of lshbi-Ura, the 
founder of the Dynasty of Nisin, was Mari, a city and 
district on the middle Euphrates . 1 We may conclude, 
then, that the Dynasties of Nisin and Babylon, and pro- 
bably that of Larsa, were products of the same great 
racial movement, and that, more than a century before 
Sumu-abum established his throne at Babylon, Western 
Semites had descended the Euphrates and had pene- 
trated into the southern districts of the country. 

The new-comers probably owed their speedy success 
in Babylonia m great part to the fact that many of the 
immigrant tribes hud already acquired the elements of 
Babylonian culture. During their previous residence 
within the sphere of settled civilization they had adopted 
a way of life and a social organization which differed 
but little from that of the country into which they came. 
That they should have immigrated at all in a south- 
easterly direction, in preference to remaining within their 
own borders, was' doubtless due to racial pressure to 
which they themselves had been subjected. Canaan 
was still in a ferment of unrest in consequence of the 
arrival of fresh nomad tribes within her settled districts, 
and, while many were doubtless diverted southwards 
towards the Egyptian border, others pressed northwards 
into Syria, exerting an outward pressure in their advance. 
That the West-Semitic invasion of Babylonia differed 
so essentially from that of Egypt by the Hyksos is to be 
explained by this fringe of civilized settlements and 
petty kingdoms, which formed a check upon the nomad 
hordes behind them and dominated such of them as 

Turi-Dagan, Bitti-Dagan and Iashma(?)-Daguii, in addition to the city-name 
Ia’mu-Dagan ; cf. IJnguad, op. cit p. 27 f. 

1 Cf. Poebel, “ Historical Texts,” p. 137. 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 133 

succeeded in breaking through. In Egypt the damage 
wrought by the Semitic barbarians was remembered for 
generations after their expulsion , 1 whereas in Babylonia 
the invaders succeeded in establishing a dynasty which 
gave its permanent form to Babylonian civilization. 

Nisin, the city in which, as we have seen, we first 
obtain an indication of the presence of West-Semitic 
rulers, probably lay in Southern Babylonia, and we 
may picture the earlier immigrants as descending the 
course of the Euphrates until they found an oppor- 
tunity of establishing themselves in the Babylonian 
plain. The Elamite conquest, which put an end to the 
dynasty of Ur, and stripped Babylonia of her eastern 
provinces , -2 afforded Nisin the opportunity of claiming 
the hegemony. Ishbi-Ura, the founder of the new 
dynasty of kings, established his own family upon the 
throne for nearly a century, and we may probably 
regard his success in bringing his city to the front as 
due to the Semitic elements in Southern Babylonia, 
recently reinforced by fresh accretions fi'oni the north- 
west. The centralization of authority under the later 
kings of Ur had led to abuses in the administration, 
and to the revolt of the Elamite provinces ; and when 
an invading army appeared before the capital and 
carried the king, whom his courtiers had deified, to 
captivity in Elam , 3 Sumerian prestige received a blow 
from which it never recovered. 

Shortly after Ishbi-Ura! had established himself in 
Nisin, we find smother noble, who bore the Semitic name 
Naplanum, following his example, and founding an 
independent line of rulers in the neighbouring city of 
Larsa. But, in spite of the Semitic names borne by 
these two leaders and by the kings who succeeded them 
in their respective cities, it is clear that no great change 
took place in the character of the population. The 
commercial and administrative documents of the Nisin 
period closely resemble those of the Dynasty of Ur, and 

1 Cf. Breasted, “History of Egypt,” pp. 215 ff. 

2 Of. “ Sumer and Akkad,” p. 304. 

3 The tradition to this effect, which was incorporated in the later augural 
literature (cf. Boissier, “Choix do textes,” 11., p. 04 ; and Meissner, “ Orient. 
Lit.-Zeit.,” 1007, col. 114, n. 1) may he accepted as historically accurate ; cf. 
“ Sumer and Akkad,” p. 304. 



134 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

evidently reflect an unbroken sequence in the course of 
the national life . 1 The great bulk of the southern 
Babylonians were still Sumerian, and we may regard 
the new dynasties both at Nisin and Larsa as repre- 
senting a comparatively small racial aristocracy, which 
by organizing the national forces in resistance to the 
Elamites, had succeeded in imposing their own rule 
upon the native population. At Nisin the unbroken 
succession of five rulers is evidence of a settled state of 
affairs, and though Gimil-ilishu reigned for no more 
than ten years, his son and grandson, as well as his 
father, Ishbi-Ura, all had long reigns. At Larsa, too, 
we find Emisu and Samum, who succeeded Naplanum, 
the founder of the dynasty, each retaining the throne 
for more than a generation. It is probable that the 
Sumerians accepted their new rulers without question, 
and that the latter attempted to introduce no startling 
innovations into their system of administrative control. 

Of the two contemporaneous dynasties in Southern 
Babylonia, thdre is no doubt that Nisin was the more 
important. Not only have we the direct evidence of the 
Nippur Kings’ List that it was to Nisin the hegemony 
passed from Ur , 11 * but what votive texts and building- 
records have been recovered prove that its rulers 
extended their sway over other of the great cities of 
Sumer and Akkad. A fragmentary text of Idin- 
Dagan, the son and successor of Gimil-ilishu, found at 
Abu Habba, proves that * Sippar acknowledged his 
authority , 11 and inscribed bricks of his own son Ishme- 
Dagan have been found in the south at Ur . 4 * 

In all their inscriptions, too, the kings of Nisin lay 
claim to the rule of Sumer and Akkad, while Ishme- 
Dagan and his son Libit-Ishtar 6 adopt further descriptive 

1 Cf. Huber, “ Die Personennamen . . . aus der Zeit dor Konige von 
Ur und Nisin ” (1007), passim. It was this fact that at one time seemed to 
suggest the probability that the kings of Nisin, like the bulk of their 
subjects, may have been Sumerians (cf, “ Sumer and Akkad,” p. 303); but 
we may preferably regard them as representing the first wave of the move- 
ment which was soon to flood Northern Babylonia. 

2 Cf. Hilprecht, “Math., Met., and Chron. Tablets,” p. 40 f., pi. 30, 
No. 47. 

* See Scheil, “ Rec. de trav.,” XVI., pp. 187 ff. 

4 Cf. “ Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus., XXI., pi, 20 f, 

6 In the dynastic Kings’ List published by Hilprecht, “Math,, Met,, and 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 135 

titles implying beneficent activities on their part in 
the cities of Nippur, Ur, Erech and Eridu. The 
recently published inscriptions of Libit-Ishtar, which 
were recovered during the American excavations at 
Nippur, prove that in his reign the central city and 
shrine of Babylonia were under Nisin’s active control. 
But he was the last king in the direct line from Ishbi- 
Ura, and it is probable that the break in the succession 
may be connected with a temporary depression in the 
fortunes of the city ; for wc shortly have evidence of an 
increase in the power of Larsa, in consequence of which 
the city of Ur acknowledged her suserainty in place of 
that of Nisin. At the time of Libit-Ishtar’s death 
Zabaia was reigning at Larsa, but after three years the 
latter was succeeded by Gungunum, who not only bore 
the titles of king of Larsa and of Ur, but laid claim to 
the rule of Sumer and Akkad. 

At any rate, one member of the old dynastic family 
of Nisin acknowledged these new claims. Enannatum, 
Libit-Ishtar’s brother, was at this time thief priest of 
the Moon-temple in Ur, and on cones discovered at 
Mukayyar he commemorates the rebuilding of the Sun- 
temple at Larsa for the preservation of his own life and 
that of Gungunum . 1 It is possible that when Ur-Ninib 
secured the throne of Nisin, the surviving members of 
Ishbi-Ura’s family fled from the city to its rival, and 
that Enannatum, one of the most powerful of their 
number, and possibly the direct heir to his brother’s 
throne, was installed by Gungunum in the high-priestly 
office at Ur. It would be tempting to connect Libit- 
Ishtar’s fall with a fresh incursion of West-Semitic 
tribes, who, recking little of any racial connexion with 
themselves on the part of the reigning family at Nisin, 
may have attacked the city with some success until 
defeated and driven off by Ur-Ninib. We now know 
that Ur-Ninib conducted a successful campaign against 
the Su tribes on the west of Babylonia , 2 and in support 

Chron. Tablets,’* pi. 30, No. 47, Libit-Islitar is stated to have been Ishme- 
Dagan’s son ; but on another, recently published by Poobel, he is stated to 
have been idin-Dagan’s son, and so the brother of lshme-Dagan (cf. 

61 Historical Texts,” pp. 94, 137). 

1 Cf. “ Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.,” XXI., pi. 22. 

2 Cf. Poebelj i( Historical Texts,” p. 138 ; lie also notes the fact that 



136 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

of the suggestion it would be possible to cite the much 
discussed date-formula upon a tablet in the British 
Museum, which was drawn up in “ the year in which 
the Amurru drove out Libit-Ishtar.” 1 But since the 
Libit- 1 sh tar of the formula has no title, it is also 
possible to identify him with a provincial governor, 
probably of Sippar, who bore the name of Libit-Ishtar, 
and seems to be referred to on other documents 
inscribed in the reign of Apil-Sin, the grandfather of 
Hammurabi. 1 The date assigned to the invasion on the 
second alternative would correspond to another period 
of unrest at Nisin, which followed the long reign of 
Enlil-bani, so. that on either alternative we may con- 
jecture that the city of Nisin was affected for a time by 
a new incursion of Amorites. 

Whether the fall of Libit-Ishtar may be traced to 
such a cause or not, we now know that it was during 
the reigns of Ur-Ninib and Gungunum, at Nisin and at 
Larsa respectively, that a W est-Semitic Dynasty was 
established at Babylon. Northern Babylonia now fell 
under the political control of the invaders, and it is 
significant of the new direction of their advance that 
the only conflict connected in later tradition with the 
name of Sumu-abum, the founder of Babylon's indepen- 
dent line of rulers, was not with either of the dominant 
cities in Sumer, but with Assyria in the far north. On 
a late chronicle it is recorded that Uu-shuma, King 
of Assyria, marcfied against Su-abu, or Sumu-abum, 3 
and though the result of the encounter is not related, 
we may assume that his motive in making the attack 
was to check encroachments of the invaders towards 
the north and drive them southward into Babylonia. 
Ilu-shuma’s own name is purely Semitic, and since the 
Amorite god Dagan enters into the composition of 
a name borne by more than one early Assyrian ruler, 

Ur-Ninib successfully raided tbe country of Zabshali on the east of 
Babylonia. 

1 See “ Cun. Texts,” IV., pi. 22, No. 7B, ; and Ranke, “ Orient. Lit.- 

Zeit.,” 11)07, col. JOB If. 

2 Cf. “Sumer and Akkad,” p. 815 f. 

3 Cf. “Chronicles concerning Early Babylonian Kings,” II., p. 14. The 
llu-shuma, the father of Iriahum or Erishu, who is referred to in building- 
inscriptions of Shalmaneser I. and Esarhaddon (op. cit., 1., pp. 118 ff.), is 
probably to be regarded as a later ruler than Suniu-abum’s contemporary v 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 


137 


we may assume that Assyria received her Semitic 
population at about this period as another offshoot 
of the Amorite migration. 

This assumption does not rest entirely on evidence 
supplied by the royal names, but finds indirect con- 
firmation in recent archaeological research. The ex- 
cavations on the site of Ashur, the earliest Assyrian 
capital, tend to show that the first settlements in that 
country, of which we have recovered traces, were made 
by a people closely akin to the Sumerians of Southern 
Babylonia . 1 It was in the 
course of work upon a tem- 
ple dedicated to Ishtar, the 
national goddess of Assyria, 
that remains were found of 
very early periods of occupa- 
tion. Below the foundation 
of the later building a still 
older temple was found, also 
dedicated to that ’goddess. 

Incidentally this building has 
an interest of its own, for it 
proved to be the earliest tem- 
ple yet discovered in Assyria, 
dating, as it probably does, 
from the close of the third 
millennium b.c. Still deeper 
excavation, below the level bf 
this primitive Assyrian shrine, 
revealed a stratum in which 
were several examples of rude 
sculpture, apparently representing, not Semites, but the 
early non-Semitic inhabitants of Southern Babylonia. 

1 Since the year 11)03 the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft lias been conduct- 
ing excavations at Shergat, the site of Ashur, the old capital of Assyria on 
the middle 'Tigris. Monographs on some of the temples of the city and its 
system of fortification have already been published, and during the summer of 
1013 the excavations were drawing to a close. 'The greater part of the palace 
and temple-area had been uncovered, and detailed plans had been made 
of all existing buildings ; it only remained to trench still deeper to the virgin 
rock, in order to complete the digging. This process had naturally been left 
till last, as it involved considerable destruction to the buildings already 
"Uncovered. It was in the course of the deeper trenching that the discoveries 
referred to in the text were made ; for brief reports of them by Andrae, see 
the “Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft,” No. 54 (June, 11)14). 



Fig. 34. 


HEAD OF AN ARCHAIC LIMESTONE 
FIGURE FROM ASHUR. 

The primitive character of the 
sculpture is apparont, and the in- 
laying of the eyes with shell is 
characteristic of early work in 
Babylonia. Tho figure is possibly 
that of a female. 

[After Mitt, der Deutsch. Orient - 
Oesellschaft , No. 54, p. 9.] 



138 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


The extremely archaic character of the work is 
well illustrated by a head, possibly that of a female 
figure , 1 in which the inlaying of the eyes recalls a 
familiar practice in early work from Babylonia. But 
the most striking evidence was furnished by heads of 
male figures, which, if offered lor sale without a know- 
ledge of their provenance , would undoubtedly have 
been accepted as coming from Tello or Bismaya, the 
sites of the early Sumerian cities of Lagash and Adah. 
The racial type presented by the heads appears to be 
purely Sumerian, and, though one figure at least is 



HEADS OF ARCHAIC MALE FIGURES FROM AKHUK AND TELLO. 


A marked feature of both heads is the shaven scalp, exhibiting a characteristic 
Sumerian practice. Fig. VJ 5 is from As^ur, Fig. 36 from Tello. 

[After M.D.O.G., No. 54, p. 12, and Do Sarzec, Wcouvertcs en Chaldie , pi. 6, No. 1.] 


bearded, the Sumerian practice of shaving the head 
was evidently in vogue . 2 In other limestone figures, of 
which the bodies have been preserved, the treatment 
of the garments corresponds precisely to that in archaic 
Sumerian sculpture. The figures wear the same rough 
woollen garments, and the conventionalized treatment 
of the separate flocks of wool is identical in both sets of 
examples . 3 The evidence is not yet fully published, 
but, so far as it is available, it suggests that the 
Sumerians, whose presence has hither, to been traced 
only upon sites in Southern Babylonia, were also at a 
very early period in occupation of Assyria. 

1 See Fig. 34. 2 See Figs. 35 and 36. 3 See p. 140, Figs. 37-39. 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 139 

The violent termination of their settlement at Ashur 
is attested by an abundance of charred remains, which 
separate the Sumerian stratum from that immediately 
above it. Had we no evidence to the contrary, it 
might have been assumed that their successors were of 
the same stock as those early Semitic invaders who 
dominated Northern Babylonia early in the third millen- 
nium b.c., and pushed eastward across the Tigris into 
Gutium. But it is recognized that the founders of the 
historic city of Ashur, records of whose achievements 
have been recovered in the early building-inscriptions, 
bear names which are quite un- Semitic in character. 
There is a good deal to be said for regarding Ushpia, or 
Aushpia, the traditional founder of the great temple of 
the god A shir , 1 and Kikia, the earliest builder of the 
city’s wall , 2 as representing the first arrival of the 
Mitannian race, which in the fourteenth century played, 
under new leadership, so dominant a part in the politics 
of W estern Asia.* Not only have their names a Mitan- 
nian sound, but we ITave undoubted evidence of the 
worship of the Mitannian and Hittite god Teshub as 
early as the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon ; 
and the fact that the Mitannian name, which incorpo- 
rates that of the deity, is borne by a witness on a 
Babylonian contract, suggests that he came of a civilized 
and settled race . 4 

It is true that the name Mitanni is not met with at 
this period, but the geographical term* Subartu is/’ and 

1 The tradition has survived in the building-inscriptions of Shalmaneser 1. 
and Esarhaddon, found at Slier gat ; cf. “ Chronicles,” I., pp. 120 If. 

2 He is referred to on a small cone or cylinder, found at Shergat in 1904, 
and inscribed with a text of Asliir-rim-nisheshu ; op. cit ., p. 140 f. 

8 Their names have been compared with such Mitannian forms as Pindiya, 
Zuliya, etc. ; cf. Ungnad, “ Beitr. z. Assyr.,” VI., No. 5, pp. 11 ff. 

4 The first witness to a loan, dated in the third year of Annni-zaduga, 
bears the name Teshsliub-*ari, corresponding to the later Mitannian name 
Ari-Teshub, meaning “ Teshub has given ” ; cf. Ungnad, “ Vorderas. Schrift- 
denkmaler,” VII., No. 72, 1. 10. 

f> A “ man of Subartu ” ( awil Suharti) is mentioned oil a document of the 
Hammurabi period (cf. Sclieil, “ ltec. de trav.,” XX., p. 04) ; and a private letter 
of the time gives directions for the sale into slavery of certain “ Shubareans ” 
(Shubari), who had probably been captured in battle (cf. Meissner, “ Beitr. 
z. Assyr.,” II., p. 5G1 f., and Helitzsch, op. cit. IV., p. 95). On another text 
“a slave-girl of Shubartu (< amt um Shubaritum) is referred to (cf. “Cun. Texts 
in the Brit. Mus.,” VIII., pi. 40. Bu. 91-5-9, 2179, Obv., 1. 20), and “a 
Shubarean ” ( ShubarA ) is mentioned in an account-tablet among recipients of 
daily rations (cf. Ungnad, “Vorderas. Schriftdenk.,” VII., p. 08, No. 184, 
Col. III., 1. 3, and “Beitr. z. Assyr.,” VI., No. 5, p. 19, n. 2). 



140 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 

in late* tradition was regarded as having ranked with 
Akkad, Elam and Amurru as one of the four quarters 
of the ancient civilized world. 

In the astrological and omen texts, which incorporate 
very early traditions, the references to Shubartu are 
interpreted as applying to Assyria,' but the term evi- 
dently had an earlier connotation before the rise of 



Fia. 37. Fig. 38. Fig. 39. 


EXAMPLES OF ARCHAIC SCULPTURE FROM ASHUR AND TELLO, EXHIBITING THE 
SAME CONVENTION IN THE TREATMENT OF WOOLLEN GARMENTS. 

* 

The seated statuette) (Fig. 37) is from Ashur, and Llie treatment of tho garment 
is precisely similar to that in early Tello work (Figs. 38 and 39). 

[After M.D.O.G . , No. 54, p. 18, and Dec., pi. 2 (bis), No. 1, and pi. 21 (ter), No. 3.] 

Assyria to power. It may well have included the 
North-Mesopotamiaii region known afterwards as the 
land of Mitarmi, whose rulers are found in temporary 
occupation of Nineveh, as their predecessors may have 
established themselves at Ashur. 11/it, however that 
may be, it is clear that the historic city of Ashur was 

1 For the purpose of interpreting lunar observations, for example, and 
particularly for eclipses, the face of the moon was divided into four (juarters, 
that on the right referring to Akkad, that on the left to Elam, the upper 
quarter to Amurru and the lower to Suharto ; and one Assyrian astrologer, 
when reporting to his master an observation which related to Subartu, 
explains that “ We are Subartu ” ; cf. Thompson, “ Reports of the Magicians 
and Astrologers/’ II., pp. xviii., Ixxxv. 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 141 

not in its origin either a Sumerian or a Semitic founda- 
tion. Its later racial character must date from the 
period of the Western Semites, whose amalgamation 
with an alien and probably Anatolian strain, which they 
found there, may account in part for the warlike and 
brutal character of the Assyrians of history, so striking 
a contrast to that of the milder and more commercial 
Semites who settled in the lower Euphrates valley. As 
in Babylonia, the language and to a great extent the 
features of the Semite eventually predominated ; and 
the other element in the composition of the race 
survived only in an increased ferocity of temperament. 

This was the people of whose attack on Sumu-abum, 
the founder of Babylon’s greatness, later ages preserved 
the tradition. No conflict with Assyria is commemo- 
rated in Sumu-abum s date-formula*, and it is possible 
that it took place before he secured his throne in Babylon, 
and built the great fortification-wall of the city with 
which he inaugurated his reign. When once hewas settled 
there and had placed the town in a state of defence, he 
began to extend his influence over neighbouring cities 
in Akkad. Kibalbarru, which he fortified with a city- 
wall in his third year, was probably in the immediate 
neighbourhood of Babylon, and we know that Dilbat, 
the fortification of which was completed in his ninth 
year, lay only about seventeen miles south of the capital . 1 
The five years which separated these two efforts at 
expansion were uneventful from the point of view of 
political achievement, for the only noteworthy episodes 
recorded were the building of a temple to the goddess 
Nin-Sinna and another to Nannar, the Moon-god, in 
which he afterwards set up a great cedar door. It may 
be that the conflict with Assyria should be set in this 
interval ; but we should then have expected some sort of 
reference to the successful repulse of the enemy, and it 
is preferable to place it before his first year of rule. 


1 Dilbat is now marked by tbe mound of Dolein, which lies about seven- 
teen miles to the south of the Kasr, the old citadel and centre of Babylon, 
and less than ten miles to the south-east ot Birs Nirnriul. Many years ago 
Uassain procured a few tablets there by excavation (cf. “ Assliur and the Land 
of Nimrod,” p. 2(15), and in recent years large numbers have been obtained 
there, as the result of native digging, and sold in Europe ; they all date from 
the period of the First Dynasty of Babylon. 



142 HISTORY ,OF BABYLON 

* % 

His success in the encounter with Assyria may well 
have afforded this West-Semitic chieftain the opportunity 
of fortifying one of the great towns of Akkad, and of 
establishing himself there as its protector against the 
danger of aggression from the north ; and there is 
no doubt that Babylon had long had some sort of local 
governor, the traditions of whose office he inherited. 
Since we have references to E-sagila in the time of the 
Dynasties of Akkad and of Ur , 1 the former rulers of 
Babylon were probably no more than the chief priests 
of Marduk’s sanctuary. That Sumu-abum should have 
changed the office to that of king, and that his successor 
should have succeeded in establishing a dynasty that 
endured for nearly three centuries, is evidence of the 
unabated energy of the new settlers. Even the later 
members of the dynasty retained their original W est- 
Semitic character , 2 and this fact, coupled with the 
speedy control of other cities than Babylon, suggests 
that the Western Semites had now arrived in far greater 
numbers than during their easier migration farther 
down the Euphrates. 

It is possible to trace tbe gradual growth of 
Babylon’s influence in Akkad under her new rulers, 
and the stages by which she threw out her control over 
an increasing area of territory. At Dilbat, for example, 
she had no difficulties from the very first, and during 
almost the whole period of the First Dynasty the 
government of the city ‘was scarcely distinguishable 
from that of Babylon. The god Urash and the goddess 
Lagamal were the patron deities of Dilbat, around 
whose cult the life of the city centred ; and there was 
a local secular administration. But the latter was com- 
pletely subordinate to the capital, and no effort was 
made, nor apparently was one required, to retain a 
semblance of local independence. The treatment of 
Sippar, on the other hand, was rather ' different. Here 
Sumu-abum appears to have recognized the local ruler 

1 Cf. “ Sumer and Akkad,” pp. 226, 282. 

2 This is particularly apparent in the royal names, the foreign character 
of which was first pointed out by Pognon, “Journal Asiatique,” 8me ser., 
Vol. XI., pp. 544 ff., who on this evidence alone suggested that the dynasty 
might be Arab or Aramean ; see further, “ Letters of Hammurabi,” III., 
p. lxv., aud Meyer, “Geschichte des Altertums,” I., ii., p. 645. 



THE WESTijRJT SEMITES 143 

as his vassal ; a?id, as a further concession to its semi- 
independent state, he allowed the town the privilege of 
continuing to use its own date- formulae, derived from 
local events . 1 Oaths, it is true, had to be taken in the 
king of Babylon’s name and in that of the great Sun- 
god of Sippar ; but the city could arrange and use its 
own system of time-reckoning without reference to the 
capital’s affairs. Perhaps the most interesting example 
of Babylon’s early system of provincial government is 
that presented by the city of Kish, for we can there 
trace the gradual extension of her control from a limited 
suzerainty to complete annexation. 

Kish Jay far nearer to Babylon than Dilbat,* but it 
had a more illustrious past to inspire it than the other 
city. It had played a great part in the earlier history 
of Sumer and Akkad, and at the time of the West- 
Semi tic occupation of Babylon it was still governed by 
independent kings. We have recovered an inscription 
of one such ruler, Ashduni-erim, who may well have 
been Sumu-abum’s contemporary, for the record reflects 
a state of affairs such as would have been caused by a 
hostile invasion and gradual conquest of the country . 3 
Although Ashduni-erim lays claim only to the kingdom 
of Kish, he speaks in grandiloquent terms of the invasion, 
relating how the four quarters of the world revolted 
against him. For eight years he fought against the 
enemy, so that in the eighth year his army was 
reduced to three hundred •men. But the city-god 
Zamama and Ishtar, his consort, then came to his 
succour and brought him supplies of food. With this 
encouragement he marched out for a whole day, and 
then for forty days he placed the enemy’s land under 
contribution ; and he closes his inscription rather 

1 From a local date-formula on one of the tablets from Abu Habba we 
have recovered the name of Naram-Sin, a governor or vassal-ruler of 
Sippar in Sumu-abum’s reign; cf. Ungnad, “ Vorderas. Schriftdenkinaler,” 
V I II., No. 3. Another vassal-ruler of Sippar, Bunutakhtun-ila, occupied 
the throne in Sum u-la-il uin’s reign, and to the same period are to be 
assigned lluma-ila and Immerum, of whom the latter cut the Ashukhi 
Canal ; for references, see Schorr, “ Urkunden des altbabylonisclien Zivil- 
und Processreehts,” p. 611. 

3 Kish is now marked by the mounds of El-Ohemir, or Ahimer, which 
lie to the east of Babylon ; cf. “Sumer and Akkad,” p. 38 f. 

3 The text is inscribed upon a clay cone from Ahimer, and has been 
published by Thureau-Dangin, “ Rev. d’Assyr.,” VIII. (i ( dll), pp. 65 If. 



144 HISTORY OF BABYLQN 

abruptly by recording that he - rebuilt the wall of Kish. 
The clay cone was probably a foundation-record, which' 
he buried within the structure of the city-wall. * 

Ashduni-erim does not refer to his enemy by name, 
but it is to be noted that the hostile territory lay within 
a day’s march of Kish, a description that surely points 
to Babylon. The eight years of conflict fit in admirably 
with the suggestion, for w r e know that it was in Sumu- 
abum’s tenth year, exactly eight years after his occupa- 
tion of Kibalbarru, that his suzerainty was acknowledged 
in Kish. Sumu-abum named that year of his reign after 
his dedication of a crown to the god Anu of Kish , 1 and 
we may conjecture that Ashduni-erim, weakened by the 
long conflict which he describes, came to terms with his 
stronger neighbour and accepted the position of a vassal. 
Having given guarantees for his fidelity, he would have 
received Sumu-abum in Kish, where the latter as the 
suzerain of the city performed the dedication he com- 
memorated in his date-formula for that year. This 
would fully . explain the guarded terms in which 
Ashduni-erim refers to the enemy in his inscription, 
the rebuilding of the city-wall having, on this supposi- 
tion, been undertaken with Babylon’s consent . 2 

That Kish was accorded the position of a vassal 
state is certain, for, among contract-tablets recovered 
from the city, several were drawn up in the reign 
of Manana, who was Sumu-abum’s vassal. In these 
documents the oath is taken in Manana’s name, but 
they are dated by the formula for Sumu-abum’s 
thirteenth year, commemorating his capture of Kazallu. 
The importance of the latter event may be held to 
explain the use of the suzerain’s own formula, lor other 
documents in Manana’s reign are dated by local events, 
proving that at Kish, as at Sippar, a vassal city of 
Babylon was allowed the privilege of retaining its own 
system of time-reckoning. If we are right in regarding 


1 That Sumu-abum performed the dedication in his character of suzerain 
is proved by a contract-tablet from Kish, which is dated by the formula for 
his tenth year. 

2 It is also possible that the eight years of conflict may date from Sumu- 
abum’s accession, in which case the text would commemorate a strengthening 1 
of the wall of Kish two years before the capture of the city by Babylon ; but 
the evidence of the date-formula? is in favour of the tenth year. 





THE WESTERN SEMITES 145 

Ashduni-erim as Sumu-abum’s contemporary, it is clear 
that he must have been succeeded by Manan& within 
three years of his capitulation to Babylon. During the 
next few years the throne of Kish was occupied by 
at least three rulers in quick succession, Sumu-ditana, 
Iawium, and Khalium , 1 for we know that by the 
thirteenth year of Sumu-la-ilum, who succeeded Sumu- 
aburn on the throne of Babylon, the city of Kish had 
revolted and had been finally annexed. 

^ -The conquest of Kazallu, which Sumu-abum carried 
out in the last year but one of his reign, was the most 
i important of Babylon’s early victories, for it marked an 
extension of her influence beyond the limits of Akkad. 
The city appears to have lain to the east of the Tigris, 
and the two most powerful empires in the past history 
of Babylonia had each come into active conflict with it 
during the early years of their existence. Its conquest by 
Akkad was regarded in Babylonian tradition as the most 
notable achievement of Sargon’s reign ; and at a later 
period I)ungi of Ur, after capturing the Ehlmite border 
city of Der, had extended his empire to the north or 
east by including Kazallu within its borders .' 2 Sumu- 
abum’s conquest was probably little more than a suc- 
cessful raid, for in the reign of Sumu-la-ilum Kazallu in 
its turn attacked Babylon, and, by fully occupying her 
energies, delayed her southward expansion for some 
years. . 

In the earlier part of his r^ign Sumu-la-ilum appears 
to have devoted himself to consolidating the position 
his predecessor had secured and to improving the 
internal resources of his kingdom. The Shamash- 
khegallum Canal, which he cut immediately on his 
.accession, lay probably in the neighbourhood of Sippar ; 

1 On one of fclie tablets from Kish Iawium is associated with Manana in 
the oath-formula, and from another we know that he survived Sumu-ditana, 
whom- he probably succeeded on the throne ; Khalium may probably be 
placed after the other three vassal-rulers whose names have been recovered. 
There appears to have been a local custom at Kish for each ruler to choose a 
different god with whom to he associated in the oath -formula* ; thus, while 
Zamama, the city-god of Kish, appears in those of Iawium s reign, his place is 
taken by Nannar and Sin under Manana and Khalium respectively. ^ For the 
tablets and their dates, see Thureau-Dangin, “Rev. d’Assyr.,” VIII., pp. 
68 ff. ; Johns, " Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.,” XXXII. {lMO),' P- 27 ( J f. ; and 
Langdon, op. c/7., XX XU I. (11)1 1 ), pp. 185 ff. 

* Cf. “ Sumer and Akkad,” pp. 227* 285 f. 


L 



1 4d HISTORY OF BABYLON 

' 7 % 

and later on he further improved the country’s system 
of irrigation by a second canal to which he gave his 
own name . 1 The policy he thus inaugurated was ener- 
getically maintained by his successors, and much of 
Babylon’s wealth and prosperity under her early kings 
may be traced to the care they lavished on increasing 
the area of land under cultivation. Sumu-la-ilum also 
rebuilt the great fortification-wall of his capital, but 
during his first twelve years he records only one military 
expedition . 2 It was in his thirteenth year that the 
revolt and reconquest of Kish put an end to this period 
of peaceful development. 

The importance attached by Babylon to the sup- 
pression of this revolt is attested by the fact that for five 
years it formed an era for the dating of documents, 
which was only discontinued when the city of Kazallu, 
under the leadership of Iakhzir-ilum, administered a 
fresh shock to the growing kingdom by an invasion of 
Babylonian territory. Iakhzir-ilum appears to have 
secured the co-operation of Kish by inciting it once 
more to rebellion, for in the following year Babylon 
destroyed the wall of Anu in that city ; and, after re- 
establishing her authority there, she devoted her next 
campaign to carrying the war into the enemy’s country. 
That the subsequent conquest of Kazallu and the defeat 
of its army failed to afford a fresh subject for a nascent 
era in the chronology is to be explained by the incom- 
pleteness of the victory ; ‘for Iakhzir-ilum escaped the 
fate which overtook his city, and it was only after five 
years of continued resistance that he was finally defeated 
and slain . 3 

After disposing of this source of danger from beyond 
the Tigris, Sumu-la-ilum continued his predecessor’s 
policy of annexation within the limits of Akkad. In 
his twenty-seventh year he commemorates the destruc- 
tion and rebuilding of the wall of CUthah, suggesting 

1 The Sumu-la-ilum Canal was first constructed in his twelfth year, and it 
was recut or extended twenty years afterwards. 

* The third year of his reign was named as that in which he slew the 
Khalambu with the sword. 

3 That in the interval Babylon had no marked success to commemorate is 
suggested by the naming of years after the construction of a throue for 
Marduk in his temple at Babylon, and of a statue for his consort, Sarpauitum. 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 147 

that the city had up to that time maintained its indepen- 
dence and now only yielded it to force of arms. It 
is significant that in the same year he records that he 
treated the wall of the god Zakar in a similar fashion, 
for Dur-Zakar was one of the defences of Nippur, 1 * and 
lay either within the city-area or in its immediate 
neighbourhood. That year, thus appears to mark 
Babylon’s first bid for the rule of Sumer as well as of 
Akkad, for the possession of the central city was 
regarded as carrying with it the right of suzerainty 
over the whole country. It is noteworthy, too, that 
this success appears to correspond to a period of great 
unrest at Nisin in Southern Babylonia. 

4 During the preceding period of forty years the 
southern cities had continued to rule within their home 
territory without interference from Babylon. In spite 
of Sumu-abum’s increasing influence in Northern Baby- 
lonia, Ur-Ninib of Nisin had claimed the control of 
Akkad in virtue of big possession of Nippur, though 
his authority cannot have been recognized much farther 
to the north. Dike the earlier king of Nisin, Ishme- 
Dagan, he styled himself in addition Lord of Ercch 
and patron of Nippur, Ur and Eridu, and so did his 
son Bur-Sin II., who succeeded his father after the 
latter’s long reign of twenty-eight years. Of the group 
of southern cities Darsa alone continued to boast a line 
of independent rulers, the throne having passed from 
Gungunum successively to A\>i-sar£* and Sumu-ilum ; 
and in the latter’s reign it would seem that Larsa for 
a time even ousted Nisin from the hegemony in Sumer. 
For we have recovered at Tello the votive figure of a 
dog, which a certain priest of Lagash named Abba- 
dugga dedicated to a goddess on his behalf, 3 and in 
the inscription he refers to Sumu-ilum as King of Ur, 
proving that the city had passed from the control of 
Nisin to that of Larsa. The goddess, to whom the 

1 Tli at the two are to be identified is certain from Samsu-iluna’s reference 
to Dfir-Zakar of Nippur as among the six fortresses built by Sumu-la-iluin and 
rebuilt by himself ; see below, pp. 148, 204. 

1 Since Gungunum’s death is recorded in a local date-formula (cf. Scheil, 
tc Kec. de tray./* XXL, p. 125) we may infer that his end was] violent ; Abi- 
sare’s accession may thus mark a break in the direct succession at Larsa. 

3 See Thureau-Dangin, “Rev. d’Assyr.,” VL, p. 60 f. 



148 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

dedication was made, was Nin-Nisin, “the Lady of 
Nisin,” a fact suggestive of the further possibility that 
Nisin itself may have acknowledged Sumu-ilum for a 
time. It may be noted that in the list of Nisin kings 
ont name is missing after those of Itcr-pisha and Ura- 
imitti, who followed Bur-Sin on the throne in quick 
succession . 1 .According to later tradition Ura-imitti had 
named his gardener, Enlil-bani, to succeed him , 2 3 and in 
the list the missing ruler is recorded to have reigned in 
Nisin for six months before Enlil-bani s accession. It is 
perhaps just possible that we should restore his name 
as that of Sumu-ilum of Larsa ,' 1 who may have taken 
advantage of the internal troubles of Nisin, not only 
to annex Ur, but to place himself for a few months 
upon the rival throne, until driven out by Enlil-bani. 
However that may be, it is certain that Larsa profited 
by the unrest at Nisin, and we may perhaps also 
connect with it Babylon’s successful incursion in the 
south . 4 * 6 * , 

There is no doubt that Sumu-la-ilum was the real 
founder of Babylon’s greatness as a military power. 
We have the testimony of his later descendant Samsu- 
iluna to the strategic importance of the fortresses he 
built to protect his country’s extended frontier ; 8 and, 
though Dur-Zakar of Nippur is the only one the posi- 
tion of which can be approximately identified, we may 
assume that the majority of these lay along the east 


1 Ura-imitti was not the son of Itcr-pisha, and since a date-formula of his 
reign refers to his restoration of the city of Nippur, we may regard its previous 
destruction or capture as further evidence of political trouble at Nisin ; 
cf. Poebel, “ Historical Texts,” p. 188 f. 

2 Cf. “Sumer and Akkad,” p. 812. 

3 T he name was con jectu rally restored by Poebel, from a date-formula in 
the Pennsylvania Museum, as Sin-ikisha (cf. “Orient. Lit.-Zeit.,” 1807, col. 
401 if.). But from Prof, (day’s new king-list we now know that that ruler 
is to be identified with Sin-ikisham, the eleventh king of the Dynasty of 
Larsa ; there is no evidence to connect, him with Nisin. On the other hand, 
the six months’ rule of the unknown king at Nisin [alls in the twentieth year 
of Sumu-ilum ’s reign at Larsa, who at least for a time was recognized in lJr # 
the former vassal-city of Nisin. 

4 According to our scheme of chronology, Sumu-la-il urn’s capture of X)ftr- 

Zakar at Nippur corresponds to the year of Ura-imitti’s death and to the sub- 
sequent struggle for the throne of Nisin. 

6 In addition to PGr-Zakar of Nippur, these were Dur-Padda, Dur-I^agaha, 

Pfir-Iabugani, Dur-Oula-duru, and Dur-usi-ana-Ura. On their reconstruc- 

tion Samsu-iluna dedicated the first four to Nininakh, Adad, Sin and Lugal- 
diri-tugab, and the last two to Nergal ; cf. “ Letters of Hammurabi,” pp. 199 ff. 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 149 

and the south sides of Akkad, where the greatest danger 
of invasion was to be anticipated. It does not seem 
that Nippur itself passed at this time under more than 
a temporary control by Babylon, and we may assume 
that, after his successful raid, Sumu-la-ilum was con- 
tent to remain within the limits of Akkad, which he 
strengthened with his line of forts. In his later years 
he occupied the city of Barzi, and conducted some 
further military operations, details of which we have 
not recovered ; but those were the last efforts on 
Babylon’s part for more than a generation. 

The pause in expansion gave Babylon the oppor- 
tunity of husbanding her resources, after the first effort 
of conquest had been rendered permanent in its effect 
by Sumu-la-ilum. His two immediate successors, 
Zabum and Apil-Sin, occupied themselves with the 
internal administration of their kingdom and confined 
their military activities to keeping the frontier intact. 
Zabum indeed records a successful attack on Kazallu, 
no doubt necessitated by renewed aggression on that 
city’s part ; but his other most notable achievements 
were the fortification of Kar-Shamash, and the con- 
struction of a canal or reservoir . 1 Equally uneventful 
was the reign of Apil-Sin, for though Dur-muti, the 
wall of which he rebuilt, may have been acquired as 
the result of conquest, he too was mainly occupied with 
the consolidation and improvement pf the territory 
already won. He strengthened the walls of Barzi and 
Babylon, cut two canals , 2 and rebuilt some of the great 
temples . 3 As a result of her peaceful development 
during this period the country was rendered capable 
of a still greater struggle, which was to free Sumer 

1 To this ho gave the name Tamturn-khegallum, kf the Ocean (gives) 
abundance.” He also rebuilt E-ibianu, E-sagila, and E-babbar in Sippar, 
installing in the last-named temple a bronze image of himself, possibly with 
the idea of claiming divine honours. 

u The fSumu-dari and Apil-Sin-khegalluin Canals were both cut iu 
his reign. 

8 The costly throne for Shamash and Shunirda, or the goddess Aia, which 
he dedicated in bis third year, was probably for E-babbar in Sippar. Apil- 
Sin devoted special attention to Cuthah, the most recently acquired of 
Babylon’** greater possessions, rebuilding on two occasions E-meslain, the 
temple of Nergal, the city-god. He also enriched Babylon on the material 
side, erecting a great city-gate in its eastern wall, and building within the city 
the temple E-kiku for the goddess Ishtar and another shrine for the Sun-god. 



150 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

and Akkad from a foreign domination, and, by over- 
coming the invader, was to place Babylon for a time 
at the head of a more powerful and united empire than 
had yet been seen on the hanks of the Euphrates. 

The country’s new foe was her old rival Elam, who 
more than once before had by successful invasion 
affected the course of Babylonian affairs. But on this 
occasion she did more than raid, harry, and return : 
she annexed the city of Larsa, and by using it as a 
centre of control, attempted to extend her influence 
over the whole of Sumer and Akkad. It was at the 
close of Apil-Sin’s reign at Babylon that Kudur-Mabuk, 
the ruler of Western Elam, known at this period as the 
land of Emutbal, invaded Southern Babylonia and, after 
deposing Sili-Adad 1 of Larsa, installed his own son 
Warad-Sin upon the throne. It is a testimony to the 
greatness of this achievement, that Larsa had for 
some time enjoyed over Nisin the position of leading 
city in Sumer. Nur-Adad, ttye successor of Sumu- 
ilum, had retained control of the neighbouring city of 
Ur, and. though Enlil-bani of Nisin had continued to 
lay claim to be King of Sumer and Akkad, this proud 
title was wrested from Zambia or his successor by Sin- 
idinnam, Nur-Adad’s son. -i Sin-idinnam, indeed, on 
bricks from Mukayyar in the British Museum makes a 
reference to the military achievements by which he 
had won the ppsition for his city. In the text his 
object is to record the Rebuilding of the Moon-god’s 
temple in Ur, but he relates that he carried out this 
work after he had made the foundation of the throne 

1 For the reading of the weather-god ’s name as A dad, cf. Budge and King, 
“Annals of the Kings of Assyria,” p. lxxiv. f. The name was probably of 
West Semitic origin, though the form Rammanu, “the thunderer,” has been 
noted by Prof. Sayce on a cylinder-seal beside the goddess Ashratum (cf. “Zeits. 
f. Assyr.,” VJ., p. 161), and she elsewhere appears as the spouse of the god 
Amurru (cf. Meyer, “ tieschichte,” I., ii., p. 466). The Sumerian equivalent 
of Adad is still uncertain ; Hrozny suggests the reading Ishkur (cf. “ Zeits. 
f. Assyr.,” XX., pp. 424 IT.), while Thureau-Dangin, Clay and others prefer 
Immer, suggested in “ Konigsinschriften,” p, 208. Meanwhile it is preferable 
to employ the reading Adad, for periods at any rate after the West-Semitic 
invasion. 

- That Sin-idinnam 's assumption of the title was justified by the actual 
possession of Nippur is proved by a date-formula on a contract in the British 
Museum, in which he records the dedication of a statue of himself as an 
ornament for Nippur; cf. Rawlinson, “ Cun. Inner. West. Asia,” IV., pi. 86, 
No. 2, and Chiera, “ Legal and Administrative Documents,” p. 72. 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 151 

of Larsa secure and had smitten the whole of his 
enemies with the sword . 1 2 It is probable that his three 
successors on the throne, who reigned for less than ten 
years between them, failed to maintain his level of 
achievement, and that Sin-magir recovered the hege- 
mony for Nisin . 1 But Ur, no doubt, remained under 
Larsa ’s administration, and it was no mean nor inferior 
city that Kudur-Mabuk seized and occupied. 

The Elamite had seen his opportunity in the con- 
tinual conflicts which were taking place between the 
two rival cities of Sumer. In their contest for the 
hegemony Larsa had proved herself successful lor a time, 
but she was still the weaker city and doubtless more 
exposed to attack from across the Tigris. Hence her 
selection by Kudur-Mabuk as a basis for his attempt on 
the country as a whole. He himself retained his position 
in Elam as the Adda of Emutbal ; but he installed his 
two sons, Warad-Siri and Rim-Sin, successively upon 
the throne of Larsa, and encouraged them to attack 
Nisin and to lay claim* to the rule of Sumer and Akkad. 
But the success which attended their efforts soon 
brought Babylon upon the scene, and we have the 
curious spectacle of a three-cornered contest, in which 
Nisin is at war with Elam, while Babylon is at war in 
turn with both. That Sin-muballit, the son of Apil- 
Sin, did not combine with Nisin to expel the invader 
from Babylonian soil, may have played at first into the 
hands of the Elamites. But it is not to be forgotten 
that the Western Semites of Babylon were still a con- 
quering aristocracy, and their sympathies were far from 
being involved in the fate of any part of Sumer. Both 
Elam and Babylon must have foreseen that the capture 
of Nisin would prove a decisive advantage to the victor, 
and each was content to see her weakened in the hope 
of ultimate success. When Rim-Sin actually proved 

1 Cf. Rawlinsou, op. cit ., I., pi. 5, No. xx. In addition to his mili- 
tary prowess, he reconstructed E-babbar at Larsa, built the great fortress of 
Dftr-gurgurri , and by canalizing the Tigris improved his country’s water- 
supply (cf. “Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mub.,” XXL, pi. 30, No. 30215; 
Delitzsch, “ Beitr. zur Assyr.,” I., pp. 301 ff. ;and Thureau-Dangin, “Ivuiigs- 
inschriften,” p. 208 f.). He also built the city-gate of Mashkan-sliabri ; 
cf. Chiera, op. cit., p. 72 f. 

2 On a broken clay cone from Babylon (cf. Weissbach, f< Babylonische 
Miscelleu/’ p. 1 , pi. 1) Sin-magir bears the title of King of Sumer and Akkad. 




tite vietbr in the long sftlMggle, and Larsa finder his 
aegis inherited the traditions as well as the jhaterial 
resources of the Nisin Dynasty, the three-cornered con- 
test was reduced to a duel between Babylon and a more 
powerful Larsa. Then for a generation there ensued a 
fierce struggle between the two invading races, Elam 
and the Western Semites, for the possession of the 
country ; and the fact that Hammurabi, Sin-muballit’s 
son, should have emerged victorious, was a justification 
in full of his father’s policy of avoiding any alliance 
with the south. The Western Semites proved them- 
selves in the end strong enough to overcome the con- 
queror of Nisin, and thereby they were left in undisputed 
possession of the whole of Babylonia. 

It is possible, with the help of the date-formulae and 
votive inscriptions of the period, to follow in outline the 
main features of this remarkable struggle. At first 
Kudur-Mabuk’s footing in Sumer was confined to the 
city of Larsa, though even then he laid claim to the 
title Adda of Amurru, a reference to be explained 
perhaps by the suggested Amorite origin of the Larsa 
and Nisin dynasties, and reflecting a claim to the , 
suzerainty of the land from which his northern foes at 
any rate boasted their origin . 1 Warad-Sin, on ascending 
the throne, assumed merely the title King of Larsa, but 
we soon find him becoming the patron of Ur, and 
building a great fortification-wall in that city . 2 He 
then extended h'is authority to the south and east, 
Eridu, Lagash, and Girsu all falling before his arms 
or submitting to his suzerainty . 8 During this period 


1 If we may identify Khallabu with Aleppo, we should find a still firmer 
basis for Kudur-Mabuk r s title. For we know that, while Warad-Sin was still 
King of Larsa, he dedicated a chamber in Ishtar’s temple at Khallabu (cf. 
“Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.,” XXI., pi. 31, No. 91144; and Thureau- 
Dangin, “ Konigsinschriften,” p. 214 f.). We should then have to assume 
that, before completing his conquest of Sumer, he had already pushed up 
and across the Euphrates and had captured large districts of Amurru. It is 
possible that this was so, but it should be rioted that both Khallabu and Bit- 
Karkara are mentioned in the Prologue to Hammurabi’s Code of Laws, not 
with “ the settlements on the Euphrates/ but immediately after Lagash and 
Girsu, suggesting a Babylonian origin (see below, p. 159). 

a Cf. Kawlinson, “Cun. Jnscr. West. Asia,” 1., pi. 5, No. xvi. ; the 
erection of the wall is also commemorated in a date-formula of his reign (cf. 
Chiera, “Documents,” p. 74). 

8 On a clay cone from Mukayyar, recording his building of a temple to 
Nannar at Ur, Warad-Sin describes himself as “ he who carries out the decrees 





. ' ; / th® wjsjSIkn’ jMrtEfe i 

\ ' , S< V * t.p ^ * • ** f ( k, ' f ■* 1 . , ^ i* * r 

Babylon remained aloof in the north, and Simmuballit 
is occupied "with cutting canals add fortifying cities, 
some of which he perhaps Occupied for the first time.- 
It Was only in his fourteenth year, after Warad-Sin had 
been succeeded at Larsa by his brother Rim-Sin, that 
’we have evidence of Babylon taking an active part in 
opposing Elamite pretensions. 

In that year Sin-muballit records that he slew the 
army of Ur with the sword, and, since we know that Ur 
was at this time a vassal-city of Larsa, it is clear that 
the army referred to was one of those under Rim-Sin’s 
command. Three years later he transferred his atten- 
tion from Larsa to Nisin, then under the control of 
Damik-ilishu, the son and successor of Sin-magir. On 
that occasion Sin-muballit commemorates his conquest 
of Nisin, but it must have been little more than a 
victory in the field, for Damik-ilishu lost neither his 
city nor his independence. In the last year of his reign 
we find Sin-muballit fighting on the other front, and 
claiming to have sl&in the army of Larsa with the 
sword. It is clear that in these last seven years of his 
reign Babylon proved herself capable of checking any 
encroachments to the north on the part of Larsa and 
the Elamites, and, by a continuance of the policy of 
fortifying her vassal-cities,* she paved the way for a 
more vigorous offensive on the part of Hammurabi, 
Sin-muballit’s son and successor. Meanwhile the un- 
fortunate city of Nisin was between 'two fires, though 
for a few years longer Damik-ilishu succeeded in beating 
off both his opponents. 

The military successes of Hammurabi fall within 
two clearly defined periods, the first during the five 
years which followed his sixth year of rule at Babylon, 

and decisions of Eridu ( i.e . of its oracle), who increased the offerings of 
E-ninnfl (the temple of Ningirsu at Lagash), who restored Lagash aud 
Girsu, and renewed the city and the land ” ; cf. Rawlinson, ojp. c it, IV., pi. 35, 
No. 6. 

1 During the first thirteen years of his reign Sin-muballi{: cut three canals, 
the first named after himself, the Sin-muballit Canal, and two others which 
he termed the Aia-khegallum and the Tutu-khegallum. He also built the 
walls of Rubatum, Zakar-dada, D&r-Sin-muballit, Bit-Karkara, and Marad. 
It is possible, of course, that conflicts with the south took place at this time, 
but, if so, the absence of any reference to them in the records is to be ex- 
plained by the want of success of Babylonian arms. 

2 In this period the city walls of Nanga and Basu were rebuilt. 



154 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

and a second period, of ten years’ duration, beginning 
with the thirteenth of his reign. On his accession he 
appears to have inaugurated the reforms in the internal 
administration of the country, which culminated towards 
the close of his life in the promulgation of his famous 
Code of Laws ; for he commemorated his second year 
as that in which he established righteousness in the 
land. The following years were uneventful, the most 
important royal acts being the installation of the chief- 
priest in Kashbaran , 1 2 3 * the building of a wall for the 
Gagum, or great Cloister of Sippar, and of a temple to 
Nannar in Babylon. But with his seventh year we find 
his first reference to a military campaign in a claim to 
the capture of Ereeh and Nisin. This temporary success 
against Damik-ilishu of Nisin was doubtless a menace 
to the plans of Run-Sin at Larsa, and it would appear 
that Kudur-Mabuk came to the assistance of his son 
by threatening Babylon’s eastern border. At any rate 
Hammurabi records a conflict with the land of Emutbal 
in his eighth* year, and, though t'he attack appears to 
have been successfully repulsed with a gain of territory 
to Babylon," the diversion was successful. Rim-Sin 
took advantage of the respite thus secured to renew his 
attack with increased vigour upon Nisin, and in the 
following year, the seventeenth of his own reign, the 
famous eity fell, and Larsa under her Elamite ruler 
secured the hegemony in the whole of Central and 
Southern Babylonia. * 

Rim-Sin’s v ictory must have been a severe blow to 
Babylon, and it would seem that she made no attempt 
at first to recover her position in the south, since 
Hammurabi occupied himself with a raid on Malgum 8 in 
the west and with the capture of the cities of Rabikum 

1 From two recently published date-lists of Hammurabi’s reign we know 
that this event took place in his fifth year, while the fallowing year appears 
to have been dated by a similar priestly installation of the shepherd of 
the goddess Ninaz ; cf. Boissier, “ Rev. d’Assyr.,” XI., No. iv. (1914), 
pp. 101 ff. 

2 The territory gained on the bank of the Shu-numum-dar Canal (cf. 
Boissier, op. cit.) may have lain in Emutbal. The canal was possibly a portion 
of the famous Nar-sharri, which in the Achsemcnian period was regarded as 
lying “ in Elam.” 

3 The town lay in the neighbourhood of Sukhi on the middle Euphrates, 

below the mouth of the Khabur and probably to the soutli of Khana. 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 155 

and Shalibi. But these were the last successes during 
his first military period, and for nineteen years after- 
wards Babylon achieved nothing of a similar nature to 
commemorate in her date-form ula\ For the most part 
the years are named after the dedication of statues 
and the building and enrichment of temples. One 
canal was cut , 1 and the process of fortification went on, 
Sippar especially being put in a thorough state of 
defence . 2 But the negative evidence supplied by the 
formula* for this period suggests that it was one in 
which Babylon completely failed in any attempt she 
may have made to hinder the growth of Larsa’s power 
in the south. 

In addition to his capital, Rim-Sin had inherited 
from his brother the control of the southern group of 
cities, Ur, Erech, Girsu and Lagash, all of which lay 
to the east of Larsa and nearer to the coast ; and it was 
probably before his conquest of Nisin that he took 
Erech from Damik-ilishu, who had been attacked there 
by Hammurabi two’ years before. For in more than 
one of his inscriptions Rim-Sin refers to the time when 
Anu, Enlil and Enki, the great gods, had given the 
fair city of Erech into his hands . 3 We also know 
that he took Kisurra, rebuilt the wall of Zabilum, and 
extended his authority over Kesh, whose goddess 
Ninmakh, he relates, gave him the kingship over the 
whole country . 4 The most notable, result of his con- 
quest of Nisin was the possession of Nippur, which 
now passed to him and regularized his earlier claim 
to the rule of Sumer and Akkad. Thereafter he de- 
scribes himself as the exalted Prince of Nippur, or as 
the shepherd of the whole land of Nippur ; and we 
possess an interesting confirmation of his recognition 
there in a clay cone inscribed with a dedication for the 

1 The Tishit-Enlil Canal, which we now know was cut in Hammurabi's 
twenty-fourth year (cf. Boissier, op. cit.) ; the Hammurabi-khe^alluni ( anal 
had been cut in his ninth year, at the time of lUm-Sin’s capture of Nisin. 

2 Two years were devoted to the fortification of Sippar ; and the walls of 
Igi-kharsagga, and probably of Basu, were built. In the vassal -city of Kihal- 
barru Hammurabi dedicated an ima^e to Ninni, or lshtar, while in Babylon 
lie built E-namkhe, the temple of Adad, and a shrine also for Enlil. 

3 Cf. “Dec. en Chaldee,” pi. 41; Havvlinson, “Cun. laser. West. Asia/’ 
I., pi. 3, No. X. ; and Thureau-Danffin, ICinigsinschriften/’ p. -Id I. 

* See the date- formulae cited by Cliiera, “ Documents,” p. 80 f. 



156 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

prolongation of his life by a private citizen, a certain 
Ninib-gamil.' 

That Rim-Sin’s rule in Sumer was attended by great 
prosperity throughout the country as a whole, is attested 
by the numerous commercial documents which have 
been recovered both at Nippur and Larsa and are dated 
in the era of his capture of Nisin. There is also 
evidence that he devoted himself to improving the 
system of irrigation and of transport by water. He 
canalized a section in the lower course of the Euphrates, 
and dug the Tigris to the sea. no doubt removing from 
its main channel an accumulation of silt, which not only 
hindered trail ic but increased the danger of flood and 
the growth of the swamp-area. He also cut the 
Mashtabba Canal, and others at Nippur and on the 
Khabilu river . 1 2 It would seem that, in spite of his 
Elamite extraction and the intimate relations he con- 
tinued to maintain with his lather Kudur-Mabuk, he 
completely identified himself with the country of his 
adoption; for in the course of his long life he married 
twice, and both his wives, to judge from their fathers’ 
names, were of Semitic descent . 3 

It was not until nearly a generation had passed, after 
Rim-Sin’s capture of Nisin, that Hammurabi made any 
headway against the Elamite domination, which for so 
long had arrested any increase in the power of Babylon . 4 
But his success, when it came, was complete and endur- 
ing. In his thirtieth year lie records that he defeated 
the army of Elam, and in the next campaign he followed 

1 Cf. Hilpreclit, “Old Babylonian Inscriptions,” Pt. II., pi. 58, No. 128. 

2 Cf. Hilpreclit, loc. cit., and Chiera, op. cit., p. 82 f. 

3 One of his wives, Si[. . .]-Ninni, the daughter of Arad-Nannar, dedicated 
a temple, on his behalf and her own, to the goddess Nin-cgal (cf. Thureau- 
Dangin, “ Kxinigsinsehriften,*’ p. 218 f.). The other wife, who bore the name 
Bim-Sin-Shala-bashtashu, was the daughter of a certain Sin-magir, and Rim- 
Sin himself had a daughter named Lirish -garni urn ; cf. Poebel, “Historical 
Texts,” p. 140, who quotes the information from an inscription of Rim-Sin- 
Shala-bashtashu, which Prof. Clay informs me is now in the Yale Collection. 
A sister of Rim-Sin, who was a priestess, is mentioned on a cylinder of 
Nabonidus (cf. Scheil, “ Comptes rendus de 1’ Academic des Inscriptions et 
Belles Lcttres,” 1912, p. 680 f.). 

4 The period would he forty-five years, instead of twenty-three, if we place 
the whole sixty-one years of Rim-Sin’s reign before Hammurabi's conquest 
of Larsa ; in that case the fall of Nisin would have taken place in Sin- 
muballit’s seventh year. But the available evidence is strongly in favour of 
curtailing Rim-Sin’s period of independent rule ; see above, pp. 97 if. 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 157 

up this victory by invading the land of Emutbal, in- 
flicting a final defeat on the Elamites, and capturing and 
annexing Larsa. llim- Sin himself appears to have sur- 
vived for many years, and to have given further trouble 
to Babylon in the reign of Hammurabi’s son, Samsu- 
iluna. And the evidence seems to show that for a few 
years at least he was accorded the position of vassal 
ruler at Larsa . 1 On this supposition Hammurabi, after 
his conquest of Sumer, would have treated the old 
capital in the same way that Sumu-abum treated Kish . 2 
But it would seem that after a time Larsa must have 
been deprived of many of its privileges, including that 
of continuing its own era of time-reckoning ; and 
Hammurabi’s letters to Sin-idinnam, his local representa- 
tive, give no hint of any divided rule. We may perhaps 
assume that Rim-Sin’s subsequent revolt was due to 
resentment at this treatment, and that in Samsu-iluna’s 
reign he seized a favourable opportunity to make one 
more bid for independent rule in Babylonia. 

The defeat of Rim-Sin. and the annexation of Sumer 
to Babylon, freed Hammurabi for the task of extending 
his empire on its other three sides. During these later 
years he twice made successful raids in the Elamite 
country of Tupliash or Ashnunnak, and on the west he 
destroyed the walls of Mari and Malgum, defeated the 
armies of Turukkum, Kagmum and Subartu, and in his 
thirty-ninth year he records that he destroyed all his 
enemies that dwelt beside Subartu. It is probable 
that he includes Assyria under the geographical term 
Subartu, for both Ashur and Nineveh were subject to 
his rule ; and one of his letters proves that his occupa- 
tion of Assyria was of a permanent character, and that 
his authority was maintained by garrisons of Babylonian 
troops. Hammurabi tells us too, in the Prologue to 
his Code of Laws, that he subjugated “the settlements 
on the Euphrates,” implying the conquest of such local 
West-Semitic kingdoms as that of Khana . 3 On the 
west we may therefore regard the area of his military 

1 This seems to follow from the continuation of the Nisin era in the 
south for a few years after the fall of Larsa ; see above, p. 103. 

2 See above, p. 144. 

3 See above, pp. 120 ff. ; it was probably after these conquests that he 
adopted the title King 1 of Amurru. 



158 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


activities as extending to the borders of Syria. Up to 
the close of his reign he continued to improve the 
defences of his country, for he devoted his last two 
years to rebuilding the great fortification of Kar- 
Shamash on the Tigris and the wall of Rabikum on the 
Euphrates, and he once again strengthened the city- 
wall of Sippar. His building-inscriptions also bear 
witness to his increased activity in the reconstruction 
of temples during his closing years . 1 

An estimate of the extent of Hammurabi’s empire 
may be formed from the very exhaustive record of his 
activities which he himself drew up as the Prologue to 
his Code. He there enumerates the great cities of his 
kingdom and the benefits he has conferred upon each 
one of them. The list of cities is not drawn up with 
any administrative object, but from a purely religious 
standpoint, a recital of his treatment of each city being 
followed by a reference to what he has done for its 
temple and its city-god. Hence the majority of the 
cities are not -arranged on a geographical basis, but in 
accordance with their relative rank as centres of religious 
cult. Nippur naturally heads the list, and its possession 
at this time by Babylon had, as we shall see , 2 far-reaching 
effects upon the development of the mythology and 
religious system of the country. Next in order comes 
Eridu, in virtue of the great age and sanctity of its 
local oracle. Babylon, as the capital, comes third, and 
then the great centres of Moon- and Sun-worship, fol- 
lowed by the other great cities and shrines of Sumer 
and Akkad, the king characterizing the benefits he has 
bestowed on each. The list includes some of his western 
concjuests and ends with Ashur and Nineveh . 8 It is 

1 Cf., e.g., “ Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi.’’ pp. 180 ff. It is 
clear from the titles in the majority of them that they date from the latter 

f art of his reign. It was also after his annexation of Larsa that he cut the 
laminurabi-nukhush-nishi Canal, building a fortress at the head of the canal 
for its defence, which lie named after his father DiVr-Sin-muballit-abim- 
walidia. The erection of the granary at Babylon (op. cil., p. 192 f.) was 
evidently one of his earlier works. 

2 See below, p. 194 f. 

3 As the list of cities is practically a gazetteer of Hammurabi’s empire 
during his closing years, the names will repay enumeration, together with 
their temples and city-gods ; they are here given in the order in which they 
occur in the Prologue, the names of gods, when omitted in the text, being 
supplied within parentheses : (1) Nippur, and Ekur, the temple of Enlil ; 
(2) Eridu, and E-apsfl (the temple of Enki) ; (3) Babylon, and E-sagila, the 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 159 

significant of the racial character of his dynasty that 
Hammurabi should here ascribe his victories on the 
middle Euphrates to “ the strength of Dagan, his 
creator,” proving that, like his ancestors before him, 
he continued to be proud of his West-Semitic descent. 

In view of the closer relations which had now been 
established between Babylonia and the West, it may be 
interesting to recall that an echo from these troubled 
times found its way into the early traditions of the 
Hebrews, and has been preserved in the Book of 
Genesis. It is there related 1 that Amraphel king of 
Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of 
Elam, and Tidal king of Goiim or the “ nations,” acting 
as members of a confederation, invaded Eastern Pales- 
tine to subdue the revolted tribes of that district. 
Chedorlaomer is represented as the head of the con- 
federation, and though we know of no Elamite ruler of 
that name, we have seen that Elam at about this period 
had exercised control over a great part of Southern and 
Central Babylonia, an*d that its Babylonian capital was 
the city of Larsa, with which the Ellasar of the Hebrew 
tradition is certainly to be identified . 2 Moreover, Ivudur- 
Mabuk, the historical founder of the Elamite domina- 
tion in Babylonia, did lay claim to the title of Adda or 
ruler of the Amorites . 3 Amraphel of Shinar may well 
be Hammurabi of Babylon himself, though, so far from 
acknowledging the suzerainty of the Elamites, he was 
their principal antagonist and brought* their domination 

temple of Marduk ; (4) Ur, and E-gislishirgal (the temple of Sin) ; (5) Sippar, 
and E-babbar (the temple of Shamash) ; (6) Larsa, and E-babbar (the temple 
of Shamash) ; (7) Erecii, and E-anna, the temple of Anuand Ninni, or Ishtar ; 
(8) Nisin, and the temple E-gal makh ; (9) Kish, and E-mete-ursag, the 
temple of Zamarna ; (10) Cuthah, and E-meslam (the temple of Nergal) ; 
(11) Borsippa, and E-zida (the temple of Nabu) ; (12) Dilbat, and its god 
Urash ; (13) the city of Kesh ; (14) Lagash and Girsu, and E-ninnu (the 
temple of Ningirsu) ; (15) Khallabu, and the goddess Ninni, or Ishtar ; 
(16) Bit-Karkara, and E-ugalgal, the temple of Adad ; (17) Adah, and its 
temple E-inakh ; (18) Mashkan-shabri and the temple Meslam ; (If)) Malgfun ; 

(20) the dwellings, or settlements, on the Euphrates, and the god Dagan ; 

(21) Mera and Tutul ; (22) Akkad (Agadc), and E-ulmash, the temple of 
Ishtar ; (23) Ashur, ami “ its favourable protecting deity ” ; and (24) Nineveh, 
and E-mishinish, the temple of Ishtar. 

1 (Jen. xiv. 

2 For the Elamite character of Chedorlaomer \s name, cf. i( Letters of 

Hammurabi,” L, p. iv. f. ; but there are too many difficulties in the way of 
accepting the suggested identification of Arioch with Warad-Sin, the son of 
Kudur-Mabuk (op. cit . , pp. xlix. ff.). 3 See above, p. 152. 



160 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

to an end. Tidal is a purely Hittite name , 1 and it is 
significant that the elose of Hammurabi’s powerful 
dynasty was, as we shall see presently, hastened by an 
invasion of Hittite tribes. Thus all the great nations 
which are mentioned in this passage in Genesis were 
actually on the stage of history at this time, and, though 
we have as yet found no trace in secular sources of such 
a confederation under the leadership of Elam, the 
Hebrew record represents a state of affairs in Western 
Asia which was not impossible during the earlier half 
of Hammurabi’s reign . 2 

While Sumu-la-ilum may have laid the foundations 
of Babylon’s military power, Hammurabi was the real 
founder of her greatness. To his military achievements 
he added a genius for administrative detail, and his 
letters and despatches, which have been recovered, reveal 
him as in active control of even subordinate officials 
stationed in distant cities of his empire. That he should 
have superintended matters of public importance is what 
might be naturally expected ; but wc also see him in- 
vestigating quite trivial complaints and disputes among 
the humbler classes of his subjects, and often sending 
back a case for retrial or for further report. In fact, 
Hammurabi’s fame will always rest on his achievements 
as a law-giver, and on the great legal code which he 
drew up for use throughout his empire. It is true that 
this elaborate system of laws, which deal in detail with 
every class of the population from the noble to the 
slave, was not the creative work of Hammurabi himself. 
Like all other ancient legal codes it was governed strictly 
by precedent, and where it did not incorporate earlier 
collections of laws, it was based on careful consideration 
of established custom. Hammurabi’s great achievement 
was the codification of this mass of legal enactments 


1 Prof. Sayce was the first to point out that Tidal* is a 1 1 ittito name, and 
was borne bv one of the last kings of the Hittite Empire, Dudkhalia; cf. 
“Patriarchal Palestine,*’ p. M). 

2 We are not here concerned witli the 1 textual character of Gen. xiv. (on 
that subject, see especially Skinner, “ Genesis,” pp. 2f>(> If.), nor with the evolu- 
tion of the Abrahamic traditions (see Meyer, “ Hie Israelite!!,” p. 24b, and cp. 
Hall, “ Anc. Ilist of the Near East,” p. 401). It will suffice to note that, in 
view of the recovery of Neo-Babylonian chronicles and poetical compositions, 
dealing with early historical events, the employment of such a document among 
Hebrew literary sources seems to offer a sufficient explanation of the facts. 



THE WESTERN SEMITES 1G1 

and the rigid enforcement of the provisions of the 
resulting code throughout the whole territory of Baby- 
lonia. Its provisions reflect the king’s own enthusiasm, 
of which his letters give independent proof, in the cause 
of the humbler and the more oppressed classes of his 
subjects. Numerous legal and commercial documents 
also attest the manner in which its provisions were carried 
out, and we have evidence that the legislative system 
so established remained in practical force during subse- 
quent periods. It may be well, then, to pause at the 
age of Hammurabi, in order to ascertain the main 
features of early Babylonian civilization, and to estimate 
its influence on the country’s later development. 


M 



CHAPTER V 


THE AGE OF HAMMl'KABI AND ITS INFLUENCE ON 
LATER PERIODS 

O F no other period in the history of Babylon have 
we so intimate a knowledge as that of the West- 
Semitic kings under whom the city first attained 
the rank of capital. It was a time of strenuous growth, 
in the course of which the long struggle with regard to 
language and racial dominance was decided in favour 
of the Semite. But the victory involved no break of 
continuity, for all the essential elements of Sumerian 
culture were, preserved, the very 'length of the struggle 
having proved the main factor in securing their survival. 
There had been a gradual assimilation on both sides, 
though naturally the Sumerian had the more to give, 
and, in spite of his political disappearance, he continued 
to exert an indirect influence. This he owed in the 
main to the energy of the W estern Semite, who com- 
pleted the task of transforming a dying culture, so that 
in its new embodiment it eould be accepted by men of 
a newer race. 

Hammurabi’s age was one of transition, and we have 
fortunately recovered a great body of contemporaneous 
evidence on which to base an analysis of its social and 
political structure. On the one hand the great Code of 
Laws supplies us with the state’s administrative ideal 
and standard of justice . 1 On the other we have the 

1 The Code was first published and translated by Stfheil, in the “ Memoires 
do la D4ldgation en Perse/' Vol. IV. (1902), and the accompanying photo- 
graphic facsimile remains the best authority for the text. For the fullest 
and best bibliography to the immense mass of literature which has grown up 
around it, see Johns, “ Schweich Lectures/* 1912, pp. 05 flf. ; the most acces- 
sible versions in English are those by Johns in “ Babylonian and Assyrian 
Laws, Contracts and Letters” (1904), pp. 44 ff., and in Hastings’ “Dictionary 
of the Bible,” Vol. V. For the linguistic study of the text Ungnad’s trans- 
literation and glossary in Kohler and Ungnad’s “ Hammurabi’s Gesetz/* 
Bd. II. (1909), may be specially mentioned. 



AGE OF HAMMURABI 168 

letters of the kings themselves, and the commercial and 
legal documents of the period , 1 to prove that the Code 
was no dead letter but was accurately adjusted to the 
conditions of the time. The possibility has long been 
recognized of the existence of similar codes of early 
Sumerian origin, and a copy of one of them, on a tablet 
of the Hammurabi period, has recently been recovered . 2 
But the value of Hammurabi’s Code rests not so much 
in any claim to extensive originality, but rather on its 
correspondence to contemporary needs. It thus forms 
a first-rate witness on the subjects with which it deals, 
and where it gives no information, the letters and con- 
tracts of the period often enable us to supply the 
deficiency. 

For the purpose of legislation the Babylonian com- 
munity was divided into three main classes or grades of 
society, which corresponded to well-defined strata in the 
social system. The highest or upper class embraced 
all the officers or ministers attached to the court, the 
higher officials and servants of the state, and the owners 
of considerable landed property. But wealth or position 
did not constitute the sole qualification distinguishing 
the members of the upper class from that immediately 
below them. In fact, while the majority of its members 
enjoyed these advantages, it was possible for a man to 
forfeit them through his own fault or misfortune and 
yet to retain his social standing and privileges. It woidd 
seem therefore that the distinction was based on a racial 
qualification, and that the upper class, or nobles, as we 
may perhaps term them , 3 were men of the predominant 
race, sprung from the West-Semitic or Amorite stock 

1 For the latest bibliography to the early contract-literature see Schorr, 
(i Prkunden dex altbabylonisehen Zivil- und Prozessrexhts v (published in the 
“ Vorderasiatische Bihliothek,” 11)13), pp. xlix. ff. The great hulk of the 
royal letters are in the British Museum and are translated in “ Letters and 
Inscriptions of Hammurabi, etc.” (181)8-1000) ; and for publications of private 
letters of the period, see Schorr, op cit., p. lvi. 

2 See Clay, “Orient. Lit.-Zeit/’ 1914 (January), “ A Sumerian Prototype 
of the Hummurabi Code.” The text, of which Prof. Clay has sent me a 
photograph, is of the greatest importance for the study of Babylonian law ; 
he iB at present preparing it for publication. 

3 The Babylonian name for a member of the upper class was awthnn , 

11 man,” and, when employed in this special sense, it is best translated by 
some such expression as “patrician” or “noble.” But for legislative pur' 
poses, as well as in common parlance, awilnm could he employed in its more 
general meaning to include members of the middle class. 



164 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


which had given Babylon its first independent dynasty. 
In course of time its racial purity would tend to become 
diluted by intermarriage with the older inhabitants, 
especially where these had thrown in their lot with the 
invaders and. had espoused their cause. It is even 
possible that some of the latter had from the first 
obtained recognition in its ranks in return for military 
or political service. But, speaking broadly, we may 
regard the highest class in the social order as repre- 
senting a racial aristocracy that had imposed itself. 

The second class in the population comprised the 
great body of free men who did not come within the 
ranks of the nobles ; in fact, they formed a middle class 
between the aristocracy and the slaves. They bore a 
title which in itself implied a state of inferiority , 1 and 
though they were not necessarily poor and could possess 
slaves and property, they did not share the privileges of 
the upper class. It is probable that they represented 
the subject race, derived in part from the old Sumerian 
element in the population, in part from the Semitic strain 
which had long been settled in Northern Babylonia and 
by intercourse and intermarriage had lost much of its 
racial purity and independence. The difference, which 
divided and marked off from one another these two 
great classes of free men in the population, is well illus- 
trated by the scale of payments as compensation for 
injury which they were obliged to make or were entitled 
to receive. Thus if a noble should be guilty of stealing 
an ox, or other animal, or a boat, which was private or 
temple property, he had to pay thirty times its value as 
compensation ; whereas, if the thief were a member of 
the middle class the penalty was reduced to ten times 
the price, and, should he have no property with which 
to pay, he was put to death. The penalty for man- 
slaughter was also less if the assailant was a man of the 
middle class ; he could obtain a divorce more cheaply, 

1 They were known as mvshkhimn , derived from the Shafel-Piel stem of the 
root \kanu\ wit!) the meaning' “to humble oneself, to he humble/’ Combe 
has compared the similar use of miskin in Arabic for a man of humble station 
who is not a descendant of the prophet (cf. “ liabyloniaea/’ 111., p. 7 Bf). The 
word passed into Hebrew as mi.sk hi, and, with modifications of meaning, into 
more than one European language (cf. Jtal. mcschivo, mvarhinrfh , Portug. 
mc.squinho, French mvNijuin) ; see Johns, “Schweieh Lectures (1B12), pp. 8, 74 



AGE OF HAMMURABI 165 

and he paid his doctor or surgeon a smaller fee for a 
successful operation. On the other hand, these privileges 
were counterbalanced by a corresponding diminution of 
the value at which his life and limbs were assessed. 

That a racial distinction underlay the difference in 
social position and standing is suggested by the current 
penalties for assault, in accordance with which a noble 
could demand an exact retaliation for injuries from one 
of his own class, whereas he merely paid a money com- 
pensation to any man of the middle class he might have 
injured. Thus if one noble happened to knock out 
the eye or the tooth of another, his own eye or his own 
tootli was knocked out in return, and if he broke the 
limb of one of the members of his own class, he had his 
corresponding limb broken ; but, if he knocked out the 
eye of a member of the middle class, or broke his limb, 
he was fined one maneh of silver, and for knocking out 
the tooth of such a man, he was fined one-third of a 
maneh. Other regulations point to a similar cleavage 
in the social strata, which can best be explained by a 
difference in race. Thus if two members of the same 
class quarrelled and one of them made a peculiarly im- 
proper assault on the other, the assailant was only fined, 
the fine being larger if the quarrel was between two 
nobles. But if such an assault was made by a member 
of the middle class upon a noble, the assailant was 
punished by being publicly beaten in the presence of 
the assembly, when he received sixty* stripes from an 
ox-hide scourge. 

The third and lowest class in the community were 
the slaves, who were owned by both the upper classes, 
but were naturally more numerous in the households of 
the nobles and on their estates. The slave was his 
master’s absolute property, and on the contract-tablets 
he is often referred to as “ a head,” as though he were 
merely an animal. He constantly changed hands, by 
sale, bequest, or when temporarily pledged for a debt. 
For bad offences he was liable to severe punishment, 
such as cutting off the ear. which was the penalty for 
denying his master, or for making an aggravated assault 
upon a noble. But, on the whole, his lot was not a 
particularly hard one, for he was a recognized member 



166 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

of his master’s household, and, as a valuable piece of 
property, it was obviously to his owner’s interest to 
keep him healthy and in good condition. In fact, the 
value of the slave is attested by the severity of the 
penalties exacted for abducting a male or female slave 
from the owner’s house and removing one from the 
city ; for the death penalty was imposed in such a case, 
as also on anyone harbouring and taking possession of 
a runaway slave. On the other hand, a fixed reward 
was paid by the owner to anyone by whom a runaway 
was captured and brought back. Special legislation was 
also devised with the object of rendering the theft of 
slaves difficult and their detection easy. Thus, if a 
brander put a mark upon a slave without the owner’s 
consent, lie was liable to have his hands cut off; and, if 
he could prove that he had done so through being 
deceived by another man, that man was put to death. 
There was a regular trade in slav es, and no doubt their 
numbers were constantly increased by captives taken 
in war. # < 

Though the slaves, as a class, had few rights of their 
own, there were regulations in accordance with which, 
under certain circumstances, they could acquire them, 
and even obtain their freedom. Thus it was possible 
for an industrious slave, while still in his master’s 
service, to acquire property of his own, or a slave might 
inherit wealth from relatives ; and, in such circum- 
stances, he was able with t his master’s consent to pur- 
chase his freedom. Again, if a slave were captured by 
the enemy and taken to a foreign land and sold, and 
were then brought back by his new owner to his own 
country, he could claim his liberty without having to 
pay compensation to either of his masters. Moreover, 
a slave could acquire certain rights while still in slavery. 
Thus, if the owner of a female slave had begotten 
children by her, he could not use her as payment for a 
debt ; and, in the event of his having done so, he was 
obliged to ransom her by paying the original amount of 
the debt in money. It was also possible for a male 
slave, whether owned by a noble or by a member of the 
middle class, to marry a free woman, and if he did so 
his children were free and did not become the property 



167 


AGE OF HAMMURABI 

of his qaaster. His wife, too, if a free woman, retained 
her marriage-portion on her husband’s death, and 
supposing the couple had acquired property during the 
time they lived together as man and wife, the owner of 
the slave could only cbiim half of such property, the 
other half being retained by the free woman for her 
own use and for that of her children. The mere fact 
that such a union was possible suggests that there was 
no very marked cleavage between the social status of 
the better class of slaves and that of the humbler 
members of the middle class. 

The cultivation of the land, which formed the prin- 
cipal source of the wealth of Babylonia , 1 was carried on 
mainly by slave labour, under the control of the two 
upper classes of the population. The land itself was 
largely in the hands of the crown, the temples, and 
the great nobles and merchants who were landed pro- 
prietors ; and, including that still in communal or 
tribal possession , 2 a very large proportion was culti- 
vated on lease. 'Flip usual practice in hiring land 
for cultivation was for the tenant to pay his rent in 
kind, by assigning a certain proportion of the crop, 
generally a third or a half, to the owner, who advanced 
the seed-corn . 3 The tenant was bound to till the land 
and raise a crop, and should he neglect to do so he had 
to pay the owner what was reckoned as the average 
rent of the land, and he had also to break up the land 
and plough it before handing it back.* Elaborate regu- 
lations were in force to adjust the landowner’s duties 
and responsibilities on the one hand, and what was due 
to him from his tenant on the other. As the rent of a 
field was usually reckoned at harvest, and its amount 
depended on the size of the crop, it would have been 
unfair that damage to the crop from flood or storm 
should have been made up by the tenant ; such a loss 
was shared equally by the owner of the field and the 

1 Herodotus (I., 19B) bears witness to the ^reat. fertility of Babylonia, 
stating that of all countries of the ancient world it was the most fruitful 
in tfrain. 

2 On the early system of tribal ownership, which survived even the 
Kassite conquest and requisitions, see below, pp. 249 ft. 

3 In fact, the metayer system was in force, the landlord finding the cattle, 
agricultural implements, and seed foi* the culture of the fields ; cf. Johns, 
“ Schweich Lectures,” p. 6. 



108 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

farmer, though, if the latter had already paid his rent 
at the time the damage occurred, he could not make a 
claim for repayment. There is evidence that disputes 
were frequent not only between farmers and landowners, 
but also between farmers and shepherds, for the latter, 
when attempting to find pasture for their flocks, often 
allowed their sheep to feed off the farmers’ fields in 
spring. For such cases a scale of compensation was 
fixed. If the damage was done in the early spring, 
when the plants were still small, the farmer harvested 
the crop and received a price in kind as compensation 
from the shepherd. But if it occurred later in the year, 
when the sheep had been brought in from the meadows 
and turned on to the common land by the city -gate, the 
damage was heavier ; in such a case the shepherd had to 
take over the crop and compensate the farmer heavily. 

The king himself was a very large owner of cattle 
and sheep, and he levied tribute on the flocks and herds 
of his subjects. The owners were bound to bring the 
young cattle and lambs, that werev due from them, to the 
central town' of the district in winch they dwelt, and 
they were then collected and added to the royal flocks 
and herds. If the owners attempted to bold back any 
that were due as tribute, they were afterwards forced to 
incur the extra expense and trouble of driving the beasts 
to Babylon. The flocks and herds owned by the king 
and the great temples were probably enormous, and 
yielded a considerable revepue in themselves apart from 
the tribute and taxes levied upon private owners. 
Shepherds and herdsmen were placed in charge of them, 
and they were divided into groups under head-men, who 
arranged the districts in which the herds and flocks were 
to be grazed. The king received regular reports from 
his chief shepherds and herdsmen, and it was the duty 
of the governors of the larger towns and districts of 
Babylonia to make tours of inspection and see that due 
care was taken of the royal flocks. The sheep-shearing 
for all the flocks that were pastured near the capital took 
place in Babylon, and the king used to send out sum- 
monses to his chief shepherds to inform them of the day 
when the shearing would take place . 1 Separate flocks, 

1 See the five letters of Aimni-zaduga, in “ Letters of Ham.,” III., 1G2 ff. 








AGE OF HAMMURABI 169 

that were rpyiit and priestly property, were sometimes 
unde& the s&me chief officer, a fact that tends to show 
that the ting himself exercised a considerable measure 
of bontrol over the sacred revenues. 

In the regulation of the pastoral and agricultural 
4 life of the community, custom played a very important 
' part, and this was recognized and enforced by royal 
„ authority. Carelessness in. looking after cattle was 
punished by fine, but the owner was not held responsi- 
ble for damage unless negligence could be proved on his 
part. Thus a bull might go wild at any time and gore 
a man, who would have no redress against its owner. 
Hut if the beast was known to be vicious, and its owner 
had not blunted its horns nor shut it up, he was obliged 
to pay compensation for damage. On the other hand, 
the owner of cattle or asses, who had hired them out, 
could exact compensation for the loss or ill-treatment of 
his beasts. These were framed on the principle that 
the hirer was responsible only for damage or loss which 
he could reasonably have prevented. If, for example, a 
lion killed a hired ox or ass in the open country, or if an 
ox was killed by lightning, the loss fell upon the owner 
and not on the man who had hired the beast. Hut if 
the hirer killed the ox through carelessness or by 
beating it unmercifully, or if the beast broke its leg 
while in his charge, he had to restore to the owner 
another ox in its place. For less serious damage to the 
beast the hirer paid compensation on a fixed scale . 1 
It is clear that such regulations merely gave the royal 
sanction to long-established custom. 

Both for looking after their herds and for the cul- 
tivation of their estates the landed proprietors depended 
to a great extent upon hired herdsmen and farmers ; 
and any dishonesty on the part of the latter with regard 
to cattle, provender, or seed-corn was severely punished. 
A theft of provender, for example, had to be made good, 
and the culprit ran the additional risk of having his hands 
cut off. Heavy compensation was exacted from any 
man, who, for his own profit, hired out oxen which had 


1 For the loss of an eye the hirer paid half the beast's value, and a 
quarter for a broken horn, the loss of the tail, or a torn muzzle. 



170 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

been entrusted to his charge ; while, if a farmer stole 
the seed-corn supplied for the field he had hired, so that 
he produced no crop to share with the owner, not only 
had he to pay compensation but he was liable to be torn 
in pieces by oxen in the field he should have cultivated 1 
In the age of Hammurabi the heavier penalties were no 
doubt largely traditional, having come down from a more 
barbarous time when dishonesty could only be kept in 
check by strong measures. Their retention among the 
statutes doubtless acted as an effective deterrent, and a 
severe sentence, if carried out occasionally in the case of 
an aggravated offence, would have sufficed to maintain 
respect for the regulations. 

In the semi-tropical climate of Babylonia the canals 
played a vitally important part for the successful prose- 
cution of agriculture, and it was to the royal interest to 
see that their channels were kept in a proper state of 
repair and cleaned out at regular intervals. There is 
evidence that nearly every king of the First Dynasty of 
Babylon cut new canals and extended the system of 
irrigation and transport by water that he had inherited. 
The rich siit carried down by the rivers was deposited 
partly in the canals, especially in those sections nearer 
the main stream, with the result that the bed of a canal 
was constantly in process of being raised. Every year 
it was necessary to dig this deposit out and pile it upon 
the banks. Every year the banks rose higher and 
higher, until a point, was reached when the labour 
involved in getting rid of the silt became greater than 
that required for cutting a new channel. Hence sections 
of a canal were constantly being recut alongside the old 
channel, and it is probable that many of the canals, the 
cutting of which is commemorated in the texts, were 
really reconstructions of older streams, the beds of which 
had become hopelessly silted up. 

At the present day the traveller in certain parts of 
Babylonia comes across the raised embankments of old 
canals extending across the plain within a short distance 
of each other, and their parallel course is to be explained 
by the process of recutting, which was put off as long as 
possible, but was at last necessitated by the growing 

1 See § 2f>0 of the Code. 



AGE OF HAMMURABI 171 

height of the banks. As the bed of a canal gradually 
rose too, the high banks served the purpose of retaining 
the stream, and these were often washed away by the 
flood-water which came down from the hills in spring. 
An interesting letter has been preserved, that was written 
by Hammurabi’s grandson, Abi-eshu’, who describes a 
sudden rise of this sort in the level of the Irnina Canal 
so that it overflowed its banks . 1 At the time the king 
was building a palace in the city of Kar-Irnina, which 
was supplied by the Irnina Canal, and every year a 
certain amount of work was put into the building. At 
the time the letter was written little more than a third 
of the year’s work had been done, when the building- 
operations were stopped by flood, the canal having 
ov erflowed its banks so that the water rose right up to 
the town-wall. 

It was the duty of the local governors to see that 
the canals were kept in good repair, and they had the 
power of requisitioning labour from the inhabitants of 
villages and the owners of land situated on or near the 
banks. In return, the villagers had the right of fishing 
in the waters of a canal along the section in their charge, 
and any poaching by other villagers in their part of the 
stream was strictly forbidden. On one occasion in the 
reign of Sarnsu-iluna, Hammurabi’s son, fishermen from 
the village of Rabim went down in their boats to the 
district of Shakanim, and caught fish there contrary to 
local custom. So the inhabitants of Shakanim com- 
plained to the king of this infringement of their rights, 
and he sent a palace-oflicial to the authorities of Sippar, 
in the jurisdiction of which the villages in question lay, 
with instructions to inquire into the matter and take 
steps to prevent any poaching in the future. Fishing 
by line and net was a regular industry, and the preserva- 
tion of rights in local waters was jealously guarded. 

The larger canals were fed directly from the river, 
especially along the Euphrates, whose banks were lower 
than those of the swifter Tigris. Hut along the latter 
river, and also along the banks of the canals, it will be 
obvious that some means had to be employed to raise 
the water for purposes of irrigation from the main 

1 Cf. “Letters of Hammurabi,” III.. ]>J>. L'lO ff. 



172 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

channel to the higher level of the land. Reference is made 
in the Babylonian inscriptions to irrigation-machines , 1 
and, although their exact form and construction are 
not described, they must have been very similar to 
those employed at the present day. The most primi- 
tive method of raising water, which is commoner 
to-day in Egypt than in Mesopotamia, is the shadduj, 
which is worked by hand.. It consists of a beam sup- 
ported in the centre ; and at one end a bucket is 
suspended for raising the water, while at the other end 
is fixed a com iter- weight. Tims comparatively little 
labour is required to raise the bucket when full. That 
this contrivance was employed on the Tigris is proved 
by an Assyrian bas-relief, found at Kuyunjik, with 
representations of the shadduj' in operation. Two of 
them are being used, the one above the other, to raise 
the water to successive levels. These were probably 
the contrivances usually employed by the early Baby- 
lonians for raising the water to the level of their fields, 
and the fact that they were light and easily removed 
must have nnlde them tempting objects to the dishonest 
farmer. A scale of compensation was therefore in force, 
regulating the payments to be made to the owner by 
a detected thief. From the fact that these varied, 
according to the class and value of the machine he stole, 
we may infer that other contrivances, of a heavier and 
more permanent character, were also employed. 

One of these must certainly have corresponded to a 
very primitive arrangement that is in general use at the 
present day in Mesopotamia, particularly along the Tigris, 
where the banks are high and steep. A recess or cutting 
with perpendicular sides is driven into the bank, and a 
wooden spindle is supported on struts in a horizontal posi- 
tion over the recess, which resembles a well with one side 
opening on to the river. A rope running over the spindle 
is fastened to a skin in which the water is raised from 
the river, being drawn up by horses, donkeys, or cattle 
harnessed to the other end of the rope. To empty the 
skin by hand into the irrigation channel would, of course, 
entail considerable time and labour, and, to avoid this 
necessity, an ingenious contrivance is employed. The 

1 They are also referred to by Herodotus (I., 1 ( .KJ), but not described. 



AGE OF HAMMURABI 


173 


skin is sewn up, not in the form of a closed bag, but of 
a bag ending in a long narrow funnel. While the skin is 
being filled and drawn to the top, the funnel is kept 
raised by a thin line running over a lower spindle and 
fastened off to the main rope, so that both are pulled 
up together by the beasts. The positions of the spindles 
and the length of the ropes are so adjusted, that the end 
of the funnel stops just above a wooden trough on the 
bank below the struts, while the rest of the skin is 
drawn up higher and shoots its water through the 
funnel into the trough. The trough is usually made 
from half the trunk of a date-palm, hollowed out, and 
one end leads to the irrigation-channel on the bank. 
To give the beasts a better purchase in pulling up the 
weight of water, an inclined plane is cut in the ground, 
sloping away from the machine, and up and down this 
the beasts are driven, the skin filling and emptying itself 
automatically. To increase the supply of water, two 
skins are often employed side by side, each with its own 
tackle and set of beasts, and, as one is drawn up full, the 
other is let down empty. Thus a continuous flow of 
water is secured, and not more than one man or boy is 
required to keep each set of beasts moving. No more 
effective or simpler method could be devised of raising 
water to a considerable height, and there can be no 
doubt that, at the period of the First Dynasty, cattle 
were employed not only for ploughing, but for working 
primitive irrigation-machines of this character. 

On the Euphrates, where the river-banks are lower, 
a simple form of water-wheel was probably in use then 
as it is to-day, wherever there was sufficient current to 
work one. And the advantage of this form of machine 
is that, so long as it is in order, it can be unlocked at 
will and kept working without supervision day and 
night. The wheel is formed of stripped boughs and 
branches nailed together, with spokes joining the outer 
rims to a roughly hewn axle. Around the outer rim 
are tied a series of rough earthenware cups or bottles, 
and a few rude paddles are fixed to the wheel, projecting 
beyond the rim. The wheel is then set up in place 
near the bank of the river, its axle resting on pillars of 
rough masonry. The current turns the wheel, and the 



174 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

bottles, clipping below the surface, are raised up full, 
and empty their water into a wooden trough at the top. 
The banks of the Euphrates are usually sloping, and 
the water is conducted from the trough to the fields 
along a small aqueduct or earthen embankment. Such 
wheels to-day ai e usually set up where there is a slight 
drop in the river-bed and the water runs swiftly over 
shallows. In order to span the difference in level 
between the fields and the summer height of the stream 
the wheels are often huge contrivances, and their rough 
construction causes them to creak and groan as they 
turn with the current. In a convenient place in the 
river several of these are sometimes set up side by side, 
and their noise when at work can be heard at a great 
distance . 1 

It is not unlikely that the later Sumerians had 
already evolved these primitive forms of irrigation- 
machine, and that the Babylonians of the First Dynasty 
merely inherited them and passed them on to their 
successors. When once invented they were incapable 
of very great improvement. In the one the skin must 
always remain a skin ; in the other the wheel must 
always be lightly constructed of boughs, or the strength 
of the current would not suffice to turn it. We have seen 
reason to believe that, in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II. 
at Babylon, the triple well in the north-west corner 
may be best explained as having formed the water- 
supply for a hydraulic machine, consisting of an endless 
chain of buckets passing over a great wheel. Such is 
a very common form of raising water in Babylonia at 
the present day. It is true that in some of these 
machines the wheel for the buckets is still geared by 
means of rough wooden cogs to the long pole or winch, 
turned by beasts, who move round in a circle. But it is 
very unlikely that the early Babylonians had evolved 
the principle of the cogged wheel, and it was probably 
not till the period of the later Assyrian empire that 
bronze was so plentiful that it could have been used 
in sufficient quantity for buckets on an endless chain. 
There seems reason to believe that Sennacherib himself 

1 At Hit on the Euphrates are some of the largest water-wheels in Mesopo- 
tamia^ a line of them being built across one portion of the river. 



175 


AGE OF HAMMURABI 

introduced an innovation when he employed metal in 
the construction of the machines that supplied water to 
his palace ; 1 and we may infer that even in the Neo- 
Babylonian period a contrivance of that sort was still 
a royal luxury, and that the farmer continued to use 
the more primitive machines, sanctioned by immemorial 
usage, which he could make with his own hands. 

The manner in which the agricultural implements 
employed in early Babylonia have survived to the 
present day is well illustrated by their form of plough, 
which closely resembles that still in use in parts of 
Syria. We have no representation of the plough of 



Fjo. 40. 


THE OLD BABYLONIAN FORM OF PLOUGH IN UBE. 

The drawing is taken from Beal-impressiftns on a tablet of tbo Kassito poriod. 

T After Clay.] 

the First Babylonian Dynasty, but this was doubtless 
the same as that of the Kassite period, of which a very 
interesting representation has recently been recovered. 
On a tablet found at Nippur and dated in the fourth 
year of Nazi-Maruttash, are several impressions of a 
cylinder-seal engraved with a representation of three 
men ploughing . 2 The plough is drawn by two humped 
bulls, or zebu, who are being driven by one of the men, 
while another holds the two handles of the plough and 
guides it. The third man has a bag of seed-corn slung 

1 Cf. “Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus./’ XXVI., p. 2f>. 

2 See Fig;. 40, and cf. Clay, “Documents from the Tom pie Archives of 
Nippur,” in the “ Museum Publications of the Univ. of Pennsylvania,” 
Vol. II., No. 2 (li)12)j p. (15, from which the drawing has been taken. 




176 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

over his shoulders and is in the act of feeding seed with 
his right hand into a tube or grain-drill, down which it 
passed into the furrow made by the plough. At the 
top of the tube is a bowl, with a hole in the bottom 
opening on to the tube, which acted as a funnel and 
enabled the sower to drop the seed in without scattering 
it. This is the earliest representation of the Babylonian 
plough that we possess, and its value is increased by 
the fact that the plough is seen in operation. The 
same seed-drill occurs in three later representations. 
One of these also dates from the Kassite period, being 
found upon a boundary-stone of the period of Meli- 
Shipak II ., 3 on which it is sculptured as the sacred symbol 
of Geshtinna, the goddess of the plough . 1 2 The other 
two are of the Assyrian period, one being represented 
in enamelled brick on the walls of the palace at 
Khorsabad , 3 the other being carved among the symbols 
on the Black Stone of Esarhaddon, on which he gives 
an account of his restoration of Babylon . 4 * Similar 
ploughs, with grain-drills of precisely the same structure, 
are still used in Syria at the present time . 6 

Before ploughing and sowing his land the Babylonian 
farmer prepared it for irrigation by dividing it up into 
a number of small squares or oblong patches, each 
separated from the others by a low bank of earth. 
Some of the banks, that ran lengthways through the 
field, were made'into small channels, the ends of which 
were connected with his main irrigation-stream. No 
gates nor sluices were employed, and, when he wished to 
water one of his fields, he simply broke away the bank 
opposite one of his small channels and let the water 


1 See Plate XXI., opposite p. 248. 

2 Cf. Frank, “ Das Symbol der Gotti n Gcstinna/’ in the “Hilprecht 
Anniversary Volume ” (1909), pp. 104 ff. 

3 Cf. Place, “Ninive et PAssyrie,” III., pi. 31; the plough is there 
depicted in yellow enamel on a blue ground. 

4 See Budge and King, “Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Anti- 

quities in the British Museum,” 2nd ed. (1908), p. 221, Figure. George 
Kawlinson (“Ancient Monarchies,” I., p. 507) had already explained the 
seed-drill in the plough on Esarhaddon *s stone. 

6 The Babylonian word for plough, kankannn , has also survived in the 
Syriac kenkend , and the Rabbinic kankanna ; cf. Frank, op. cit p. 165 f. 
The use of the determinative erfl, “copper,” before the Babylonian word, 
suggests that me til was employed for the plough-share from a very early 
period. 






AGE OF HAMMURABI ITT 

flow into it. When it reached the part of his land he 
wished to water, he 'blocked the channel with a little 
earth and- broke down its bank so that the water flowed 
over one of the small squares and soaked it. 

He could then repeat the process with the next 
square, and so on, afterwards returning to the main 
channel and stopping the flow of water by blocking up 
the hole he had made in the bank. Such is the present 
process of irrigation in Mesopotamia, and there is no 
doubt that it was adopted by the early Babylonians. 
It was extremely simple, but needed care and vigilance, 
especially when water was being carried into several 
parts of an estate at once. Moreover, one main channel 
often supplied the fields of several farmers, and, in 
return for his share of the water, it was the duty of 
each man to keep its banks, where it crossed his land, in 
repair. If he failed to do so and the water forced a 
breach and flooded his neighbour’s field, he had to pay 
compensation in kind ior any crop that was ruined, 
and, if he could not pay, his goods were sold, and his 
neighbours, whose fields had been damaged, shared the 
proceeds of the sale. Similarly, if a farmer left his 
water running and forgot to shut it off, he had to pay 
compensation for any damage it might do to a neigh- 
bouring crop. 

Thed ate-palm formed the chief secondary source of 
the country’s wealth, for it grew luxuriantly in the 
alluvium and supplied the Babylonians with one of 
their principal articles of diet . 1 From it, too, they 
made a fermented wine, and a species of flour for 
baking ; its sap yielded palm-sugar, and its fibrous bark 
was suitable for weaving ropes, while its trunk furnished 
a light but tough building-material. The early Baby- 
lonian kings encouraged the laying out of date-planta- 
tions and the planting of gardens and orchards ; and 
special regulations were made with that object in view. 
For a man could obtain a field for the purpose without 
paying a yearly rent. He could plant and tend it for 
four years, and in the fifth year of his tenancy the 

1 On the cultivation of the date-palm and the Babylonian method of 
artificial fertilization, nee Herodotus, 1., JOB ; and cp. Tylor, “ l*roc. Soc. Bibl. 
Arch./’ XII. (181)0), pp. 383 ff. 


N 



178 HISTORY OF BABYLON 


original owner of the land took half the garden in pay- 
ment, while the planter kept the other half for himself. 
Care was taken to see that the bargain was properly 
carried out, for, if a bare patch had been left in the 
plantation, it was reckoned in the planter’s half ; and 
should the tenant neglect the trees during his first four 
years of occupation, he -was still liable to plant the 
whole plot without receiving his half of it, and he had 
to pay compensation in addition, which varied in 
amount according to the original condition of the land. 
In this way the authorities ensured that land should 
not be taken over and allowed to deteriorate. For the 
hire of a plantation the rent was fixed at two-thirds of 



Fig. 41. 

1 

ASSYRIAN JCttLKK ON TJIE TIGRIS, 

[After Layard.] 

its produce, the tenant providing all labour and supply- 
ing the necessary irrigation-water. 

From the royal letters of the period of the First 
Dynasty we know that the canals were not only used 
for irrigation, but also as water-ways for transport. The 
letters contain directions for the bringing of corn, dates, 
sesame-seed, and wood to Babylon, and we also know 
that wool and oil were carried in bulk by water. For 
transport of heavy goods on the Tigris and Euphrates 
it is possible that rafts, floated on inflated skins, were 
used from an early period, though the earliest evidence 
we have of their employment is furnished by the bas- 
reliefs from Nineveh. Such rafts have survived to the 





AGE OF HAMMURABI 


179 


present day , 1 and they are specially adapted for the 
transport of heavy materials, for they are carried down 
by the current, and are kept in the main stream by 
means of huge sweeps or oars. Being formed only of 
logs of wood and skins, they are not costly, for wood 
was plentiful in the upper course of the rivers. At the 
end of the journey, after the goods were landed, they 
were broken up, the logs being sold at a profit, and the 
skins, after being deflated, were packed on donkeys to 
return up stream by caravan . 2 The use of such keleks 



Fig. 42. 


THF ASSYRIAN PROTOTYPE OF THE GUFA. 

[From a bas-relief in the British Museum.] 

can only have been general when through-river com- 
munication was general, but, since we know that 
Hammurabi included Assyria* within his dominions, it 
is not impossible that they may date from at least as 
early a period as the First Dynasty. For purely local 
traffic in small bulk the gufa, or light coracle, may 
have been used in Babylonia at this time, for its repre- 
sentation on the Assyrian monuments corresponds 
exactly with its structure at the present time as used 
on the lower Tigris and Euphrates. The gvfa is formed 
of wicker-work coated with bitumen, but some of those 
represented on the sculptures from Nineveh appear to 

1 Even the modern Arabic name for such a raft, kclek, is derived from 
the Assyrian word for the same form of vessel, kalaku , as was first pointed out 
by Johnson. 

2 This is the custom at the present day, and we know that it also existed 
at the time of Herodotus (cf. I., 11)4) ; hut his description of the structure of 
the “ boats ’’ applies, not to the raft or kelck, but to the yufa, a small 
coracle, which was used only for local traffic. 



180 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


have been covered with skins as in the description of 
Herodotus . 1 

In the texts and inscriptions of the early period 
ships are referred to, and these were undoubtedly the 
only class of vessels employed on the canals for con- 
veying supplies in bulk by water. The size of such 
ships, or barges, was reckoned by the amount of grain 
they were capable of carrying, measured by the gur, 
the largest measure of capacity. W e find vessels of 
very different size referred to, varying from five to 
seventy-five gur and over. The larger class probably 
resembled the sailing barges and ferry-boats in use 
to-day , 2 which are built of heavy timbers and have flat 
bottoms when intended for the transport of beasts. In 



Fig. 43. 

ASSYRIAN RAFT OF LOGS ON THE TIGRIS. 

[Ft oin a bas-relief in the British Museum.] 

« 

Babylon at the time of the First Dynasty a boat- 
builder’s fee for constructing a vessel of sixty gur was 
fixed at two shekels of silver, and it was proportionately 
less for vessels of smaller capacity. A boat-builder w r as 
held responsible for unsound work, and should defects 
develop in a vessel within a year of its being launched, 
he was obliged to strengthen or rebuild it at his own 
expense. Boatmen and sailors formed a numerous 
class in the community, and the yearly wage of a man 
in such employment was fixed at sixty gur of corn. 
Larger vessels carried crews under the command of a 
captain, or chief boatman, and there is evidence that 
the vessels owned by the king included many of the 
larger type, which he employed for carrying grain, wool 

1 See Fig. 42 ; and cf. p. J 71>, n. 2. 2 See Plate XV., opposite p. 184. 


AGE OF HAMMURABI 181 

and dates, as well as wood and stone for building- 
operations. 

It is probable that there were regular officials, under 
the king’s control, who collected dues and looked after 
the water-transport in the separate sections of the river, 
or canal, on which they were stationed. It would have 
been their duty to report any damage or defect in the 
channel to the king, who would send orders to the 
local governor that the necessary repairs should be put 
in hand. One of Hammurabi’s letters deals with the 
blocking of a canal at Erech, about which he had 
received such reports. The dredging already under- 
taken had not been thoroughly done, so that the canal 
had soon silted up again and boats were prevented 
from reaching the city ; in his letter Hammurabi sent 
pressing orders that the canal was to be rendered 
navigable within three days . 1 Special regulations were 
also in force with regard to the respective responsibilities 
of boat-owners, boatmen and their clients. If a boat- 
man hired a boat from* its owner, he was held responsible 
for it, and had to replace it should it be lost or sunk ; but 
if he refloated it, he had only to pay the owner half its 
value for the damage it had sustained. Boatmen were 
also responsible for the safety of goods, such as corn, 
wool, oil or dates, which they had undertaken to carry 
for hire, and they had to make good any total loss due 
to their own carelessness. Collisions between two 
vessels were also provided f#r, and should one of the 
boats have been moored at the time, the boatman of 
the other vessel had to pay compensation lor the boat 
that was sunk as well as for the lost eargo, the owner of 
the latter estimating its value upon oath. Many cases 
in the courts probably arose out of loss or damage to 
goods in course of transport by water. 

The commercial activities of Babylon at the time of 
the First Dynasty led to a considerable growth in the 
size of the larger cities, which ceased to be merely local 
centres of distribution and began to engage in commerce 
farther afield. Between Babylonia and Elam close 
commercial relations had long been maintained, but 
Hammurabi’s western conquests opened up new markets 

1 Of. 44 Letters,” III., p. 1(» f. 



182 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

to the merchants of his capital. The great trade-route 
up the Euphrates and into Syria was no longer blocked 
by military outposts and fortifications, placed there in 
the vain attempt to keep back the invasion of Amorite 
tribes ; and the trade in pottery with Carchemish, of 
which we have evidence under the later kings of the 
First Dynasty ,' is significant of the new relations 
established between Babylonia and the West. The 
great merchants were, as a body, members of the upper 
class, and while they themselves continued to reside in 
Babylon, they employed traders who carried their goods 
abroad for them by caravan. 

Even Hammurabi could not entirely guarantee the 
safety of such traders, for attacks by brigands were then 
as common in the Nearer East as at the present day ; 
and there was always the additional risk that a caravan 
might be captured by the enemy, if it ventured too near 
a hostile frontier. In such circumstances the king saw 
to it that the loss of the goods was not borne by the 
agent, who t had already risked *his life and liberty in 
undertaking their transport. For, if such an agent had 
been forced in the course of his journey to give up some 
of the goods he was carrying, he had to specify the 
exact amount on oath on his return, and he was then 
acquitted of all responsibility. But if it could be 
proved before the elders of the city that he had 
attempted to cheat his employer by misappropriating 
money or goods 'to his own use, he was obliged to pay 
the merchant three times the value of the goods he had 
taken. The law was not one-sided and afforded the 
agent equal protection in relation to his more powerful 
employer ; for should the latter be convicted of an 
attempt to defraud his agent, by denying that the 
due amount had been returned to him, he had to pay his 
agent as compensation six times the amount in dispute. 
The merchant always advanced the goods or money 
with which to trade, and the fact that he could, if he 
wished to do so, fix his own profit at double the value 
of the capital, is an indication of the very satisfactory 
returns obtained at this period from foreign commerce. 
But the more usual practice was for merchant and trader 
1 Set* above, p. 127 f. 



AGE OF HAMMURABI 183 

to share the profits between them, and, in the event of 
the latter making such bad bargains that there was a 
loss on his journey, he had to refund to the merchant 
the full value of the goods he had received. At the 
time of the First Dynasty asses and donkeys were the 
beasts of burden employed for carrying merchandise, 
for the horse was as yet a great rarity and was not in 
general use in Babylonia until after the Kassite 
conquest . 1 

A large number of the First Dynasty contracts 
relate to commercial journeys of this sort, and record 
the terms of the bargains entered into between the 
interested parties. Such partnerships were sometimes 
concluded for a single journey, but more often for 
longer periods of time. The merchant always demanded 
a properly executed receipt for the money or goods he 
advanced to the trader, and the latter received one for 
any deposit or pledge he might have made in token of 
his good faith. In reckoning their accounts on the 
conclusion of a journty, only such amounts as were 
specified in the receipts were regarded as legal obliga- 
tions, and, if either party had omitted to obtain his 
proper documents, he did so at his own risk. The 
market-places of the capital and the larger towns must 
have been the centres where such business arrangements 
were transacted, and official scribes were probably always 
in attendance to draw up the terms of any bargain in the 
presence of other merchants i#nd traders, who acted as 
witnesses. These had their names enumerated at the 
close of the document, and since they were chosen from 
local residents, some were always at hand to testify in 
case of any subsequent dispute. 

The town-life in Babylonia at this time must have 
had many features in common with that of any pro- 
vincial town in Mesopotamia to-day, except that the 
paternal government of the First Dynasty undoubtedly 
saw to it that the streets were kept clean, and made 
strenuous efforts to ensure that private houses should 
be soundly built and maintained in proper repair. We 
have already followed out the lines of some of the 
streets in ancient Babylon , 2 and noted that, while the 

1 See below, j». 215 f. >d See above, pp. b2 ff. 



184 \ OF BABYbpiT , 

foundations of the houses were usually of burnt brick, 
crude brick was invariably employed for their upper 
structure. They were probably all buildings of a single 
story, their flat mud roofs, supported on a layer of brush- 
wood with poles for rafters, serving as a sleeping-place 
for their inmates during the hot season. Contemporary 
evidence goes to show that, before the period of 
Hammurabi, private houses had not been very solidly 
built, for his legislation contemplates the possibility of 
their falling and injuring the inmates. In the case of 
new houses the law fixed the responsibility upon the 
builder, and we may infer that the very heavy penalties 
exacted for bad work led to a marked improvement in 
construction. ' For, when such a newly built house fell 
and crushed the owner so that he died, the builder him- 
self was liable to be put to death. Should the fall of 
the house kill the owners son, the builder’s own son was 
slain ; and, if one or more of the owner’s slaves were 
killed, the builder had to restore him slave for slave. 
Any damage to the owner’s possessions was also made 
good by the 'builder, who had in addition to rebuild the 
house at his own cost, or repair any portion of it that 
had fallen. On the other hand, payment for sound work 
was guaranteed, and the fact that the scale of payment 
was fixed by the area of ground covered by the building, 
is direct evidence that the houses of the period consisted 
of no more than one story. The beginning of town- 
planning on systematic® lines, with streets running 
through and crossing each other at right angles, of 
which we have noted evidence at Babylon, may perhaps 
date from the Hammurabi period ; but no confident 
opinion on the point can be expressed until further 
excavation has been undertaken in the earlier strata of 
the city . 1 

AVe have recovered from contemporary documents 
a very full picture of family life in early Babylonia, for 
the duties of the separate members of a family to one 

1 The fact that, so far as they have yet been examined, the lines of the 
streets appear to have altered little during the time from the First Dynasty to 
the Neo- Babylonian and Persian periods, is at least presumptive evidence in 
favour of assigning the main lines of the street- plan on the Merkes Mound 
to the age of Hammurabi and his descendants ; see above, p. 85 f. 




18G 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


and, should she become the wife of another man, the 
marriage was not regarded as legal and she was liable 
to the extreme penalty for adultery. But if the husband 
had not sufficient means for his wife’s maintenance, it 
was recognized that she would be thrown on her own 
resources, and she was permitted to remarry. The re- 
turning captive could claim his wife, but the children 
of the second marriage remained with their own father. 
The laws of divorce, too, safeguarded the woman’s 
interests, and only dealt with her severely if it could be 
proved that she had wasted her household and failed in 
her duty as a wife ; in such a case she could be divorced 
without compensation, and even reduced to the condi- 
tion of a slave in her husband’s house. But, in the 
absence of such proof, her maintenance was fully 
secured ; for the husband had to return her marriage- 
portion, and, if there had been none, he must make her 
an allowance. She also had the custody of her children, 
for whose maintenance and education the husband had 
to provide ; and, at his death, the, divorced wife and her 
children could inherit a share of his estate . 1 The con- 
traction of a permanent disease by the wife was also 
held to constitute no grounds for a divorce. 

Such regulations throw an interesting light on the 
position of the married woman in the Babylonian 
community, which was not only unexampled in 
antiquity but compares favourably, in point of freedom 
and independence, with li^r status in many countries 
of modern Europe. Still more remarkable were the 
privileges capable of attainment by unmarried women 
of the upper class, who in certain circumstances were 
entitled to hold property in their own names and 
engage in commercial undertakings. To secure such a 
position a woman took vows, by which she became a 
member of a class of votaries attached to one of the 
chief temples in Babylon, Sippar, or another of the 
great cities . 2 The duties of such Women were not 

1 The wife could also divorce her husband, if she could prove that her past 
life had been seemly ; she then took her marriage-portion and returned to her 
father’s house. For laws as to breach of promise (based on the payment of 
the bride-price), see §§ 159-1(51 of the Code. 

a There was an important guild of votaries attached to E-bahbar, the 
temple of the Sun-god at Sippar, a second at Tr, and another at E-sagila, the 
great temple of Marduk at Babylon, where they had special privileges. 



AGE OF HAMMURABI 187 

sacerdotal, and, though they generally lived together 
in a special building, or convent, attached to the temple, 
they enjoyed a position of great influence and independ- 
ence in the community. A votary could possess pro- 
perty in her own name, and on taking her vows was 
provided with a portion by her father, exactly as though 
she were being given in marriage. This was vested in 
herself, and did not become the property of her order, 
nor of the temple to which she was attached ; it was 
devoted entirely to her maintenance, and after her 
father’s death, her brothers looked after her interest, 
and she could farm the property out. Upon her death 
her portion returned to her own family, unless her 
father assigned her the privilege of bequeathing it ; 
but any property she inherited she could bequeath, 
and she had not to pay taxes on it. She had consider- 
able freedom, could engage in commerce on her own 
account, and, should she desire to do so, could leave 
the convent and contract a form of marriage. 

While securing hew these privileges, the vows she 
took entailed corresponding responsibilities.’ Even when 
married, a votary was still obliged to remain a virgin, 
and, should her husband desire children, she could not 
bear them herself, but must provide him with a maid or 
concubine. But, in spite of this disability, she was 
secured in her position as the permanent head of the 
household. The concubine, though she might bear the 
husband children, was always the wiK'e’s inferior, and 
should she attempt to put herself on a level with the 
votary, the latter could brand her and put her with the 
female slaves ; while in the event of the concubine 
proving barren, she could be sold. Unmarried votaries, 
too, could live in houses of their own and dispose of 
their time and money in their own way. But a high 
standard of commercial and social morality was expected 
from them, and severe penalties were imposed for its 
infringement. No votary, for example, was permitted 
to open a beer-shop, and should she even enter one, she 
ran the risk of being put to death. An unmarried 
votary also enjoyed the status of a married woman, and 
the penalty for slandering one was branding in the fore- 
head. That the social position enjoyed by a votary was 



188 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

considerable is proved by the fact that many women of 
good family, and even members of the royal house, took 
vows. 

It is a striking fact that women of an Eastern race 
should have achieved such a position of independence 
at the beginning of the second millennium. The ex- 
planation is perhaps to be sought in the great part 
already played by commerce in Babylonian life. Among 
contemporary races, occupied mainly by agriculture and 
war, woman’s activity was necessarily restricted to the 
rearing of children and to the internal economy of the 
household. But with the growth of Babylonian trade 
and commercial enterprise, it would seem that the 
demand arose, on the part of women of the upper class, 
to take part in activities in which they considered 
themselves capable of joining . 1 The success of the 
experiment was doubtless due in part to the high 
standard of morality exacted, and in part to the prestige 
conferred by association with the religious cult. 

'Fhe administration of justice at the period of the 
First Dynasty was carried out by duly appointed 
courts of law under the supervision of the king. The 
judges were appointed by the crown, and a check was 
put upon any arbitrary administration of the law by the 
fact that the elders of the city sat with them and assisted 
them in hearing and sifting evidence. When once a 
judgment had been given and recorded, it was irrevo- 
cable, and if any judge attempted to alter such a decision, 
he was expelled from his judgment-seat and debarred 
from exercising judicial functions in the future. The 
regulation was probably intended to prevent the possi- 
bility of subsequent bribery ; and, if a litigant considered 
that justice had not been done, it was always open to 
him to appeal to the king. Hammurabi’s letters prove 
that he exercised strict supervision, not only over the 
cases decided in the capital, but also over those which 
were tried in the other great cities of Babylonia, and it 


1 Prof. Myres, in commenting on the industrial status found for these 
unmarried women, remarks that, with manufactures and commerce standing 
so high in the economy of Babylonia, it is not to be wondered at if the social 
structure of the country developed some of the same features as begin to 
perplex our modern world : c f. “ Dawn of Civilization/’ p. 1J7. 



AGE OF HAMMURABI 189 

is dear that he attempted to stamp out corruption on 
the part of all those invested with authority. On one 
occasion he had been informed of a case of bribery in 
the town of Dur-gurgurri, and he at once ordered the 
governor of the district to investigate the charge and 
send the guilty parties to Babylon for punishment. The 
bribe, too, was to be confiscated and despatched to 
Babylon under seal, a wise provision that would have 
tended to discourage those inclined to tamper with the 
course of justice, while at the same time it enriched the 
state . 1 The king probably tried all cases of appeal in 
person, when it was possible ; but in distant cities he 
deputed this duty to local officials. Many of the cases 
that came before him arose from the extortions of 
money-lenders , 2 and the king had no mercy when fraud 
on their part was proved. 

The relations maintained by the king with the 
numerous classes of the priesthood was also very close, 
and the control he exercised over the chief priests 
and their subordinates appears to have been as effective 
as that he maintained over the judicial authorities 
throughout the country. Under the Sumerians there 
had always been a tendency on the part of the 
more powerful members of the hierarchy to usurp the 
prerogatives of the crown , 3 but this danger appears 
to have been fully discounted under the rule of the 
W estern Semites. One iipportant • section of the 
priestly body w r ere the astrologers, whose duty it pro- 
bably was to make periodical reports to the king on the 
conjunctions and movements of the heavenly bodies, 
with the object of ascertaining whether they portended 
good or evil to the state. The later Assyrian practice 
may well have had its origin at this period, and we may 
conclude that the regulation of the calendar was carried 
out in accordance with such advice. One of Hammu- 
rabi’s letters has come down to us in which he writes to 
inform Sin-idinnam, his local governor of Larsa, that it 
had been decided to insert an intercalary month in the 
calendar. He writes that, as the year, that is the 

1 See “ Letters of Hammurabi,” III., pp. 20 IF. 

2 Op. rit ., J 1 J . , pp. 2.‘> ft. , f. 

3 01. “Sumer and Akkad,” pp. U>7 f.> 172 f. 



190 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


calendar, had a deficiency, the month that was beginning 
was to be registered as the second EIul ; and he adds 
the very practical reminder, that the insertion of the 
extra month would not justify any postponement in the 
payment of the regular tribute due from the city of 
Larsa . 1 The lunar calendar of the Babylonians rendered 
the periodical intercalation of months necessary, in order 
that it should be made to correspond to the solar year ; 
and the duty of watching for the earliest appearance of 
the new moon and fixing the first day of each month, 
was among the most important of the functions per- 
formed by the official astrologers. 

In the naming of the year the priesthood must also 
have played an important part, since the majority of the 
events from which the years were named were of a 
religious character. The system, which was inherited 
from the Sumerians, cannot have been a very convenient 
one , 2 and no doubt it owed its retention to the sanctity 
of the religious rites and associations attaching to it. 
There can be little doubt that, normally, the naming of 
the year took place at the New Year’s Feast, and, when 
the event commemorated in the formula was the instal- 
lation of a chief priest or the dedication of temple-furni- 
ture, the royal act, we may assume, was performed on 
the day the year was named . 3 Often merely a pro- 
visional title was adopted from the preceding formula, 
and then perhaps no ceremony of naming was held, unless 
in the course of it a great victory, or other important 
occurrence, was commemorated by the renaming of the 
year. The king must have consulted with his priestly 
advisers before the close of the old year, and have settled 

. 1 Cf. “ Letters,” IIT., p. 12 f. 2 Cf. “ Sumer and Akkad,’’ p. 67 f* 

3 IJngnad (“ Beitr. z. Assyr.,” VI., Hft. 3, p. 7 f.)has collected a number 
of formulae from documents, dated either on the first day of Nisan, or within 
the first six days of the year, which suggest that this was the practice ; even 
the completion of the cutting of a canal might have been foreseen. Very 
rarely, a formula may have been framed from An important event of 
the preceding year, perhaps occurring towards its close ; the defeat of Ntsin 
in Sin-mu ball it’s seventeenth date-formula is an instance in point, since one 
document which hears the formula is dated on the sixth of Nisan. But there 
is little to be said for Poebel’s theory (cf. 4 ‘ Babylonian Legal and Business 
Documents,” pp. 100 ff.), which is based on the assumption that this was the 
usual practice. For editions of the First Dynasty date-formulas, see “ Letters 
and Inscriptions of Hammurabi,” III., pp. 212 ff. ; Poebel, “Legal and 
Business Documents,” pp. 66 ff. ; Johns, Year-Names of the First Dynasty 
of Babylon ” (1911) ; and Schorr, “ Urkunden,” pp. 682 ff. 



AGE OF HAMMURABI 191 

on the new formula in good time to allow of its 
announcement in the outlying districts of the kingdom. 

Another important religious class at this period was 
the guild of soothsayers, and they also appear to have 
been directly under the royal control. This we gather 
from a letter of Ammi-ditana, one of the later kings of 
the First Dynasty, written to three high officials of 
Sippar, which illustrates the nature of their duties and 
the sort of occasion on which they were called upon to 
perform them. 1 It had come to the king’s knowledge 
that there was a scarcity of corn in Shagga, and since 
that town was in the administrative distinct of Sippar, he 
wrote to the officials concerned ordering them to send a 
supply thither. But, before the corn was brought into 
the city, they were to consult the soothsayers, in order 
to ascertain whether the omens were favourable. The 
method of inquiry is not specified, but it was probably 
liver-divination, which was in common use during all 
periods. 1 ' Only if the omens proved favourable, was the 
corn to be brought into the town, and we may conclude 
that the king took this precaution as he feared that the 
scarcity of corn in Shagga was due to the anger of some 
local deity. The astrologers would be able to ascertain 
the facts, and, in the event of their reporting un- 
favourably, no doubt the services of the local priesthood 
would have been called in. 

We have already seen that flocks *and herds which 
were owned by the great temples were sometimes pas- 
tured with those of the king, and there is abundant 
evidence that the king also superintended the collection 
of temple-revenues along with his own. Collectors of 
both secular and ecclesiastical tribute sent reports 
directly to the king, and, if there was any deficit in the 
supply expected from a collector, he had to make it 
up himself. From one of Hammurabi’s letters, for 
example, we gather that two landowners, or money- 
lenders, had lent money or advanced seed-corn to certain 
farmers near the towns of Dur-gurgurri and llakhabu 
and along the Tigris, and in settlement of their claims 
had seized the crops, refusing to pay the proportion due 

1 See “ Letters of Hammurabi,” III., pp. 157 If. 

2 See Jastrow, “ Religion,” Bd. II., passim. 



193 tTISTORY OF BABYLON 

to Bit-il-kittim, the great temple of the Sun-god at 
Larsa. The governor of Larsa, the principal city in the 
district, had rightly, as the representative of the palace, 
caused the tax-collector to make up the deficiency, but 
Hammurabi, on receiving the subordinate officer’s com- 
plaint, referred the matter back to the governor, and we 
may infer from similar cases that the defaulting parties 
had to make good the loss and submit to fines or punish- 
ment . 1 The document throws an interesting light on 
the methods of government administration, and the 
manner in which the king gave personal supervision to 
the smallest details. 

It will be obvious that for the administration of the 
country a large body of officials were required, and of 
their number two classes, of a semi-military character, 
enjoyed the king’s special favour and protection. They 
were placed in charge of public works and looked after 
and controlled the public slaves, and they probably also 
had a good deal to do with the collection of the revenue. 
As payment .for their duties, they were each granted 
land with a house and garden ; they were assigned sheep 
and cattle to stock their land, and in addition they 
received a regular salary. They were, in a sense, per- 
sonal retainers of the king, and were liable to be sent 
at any moment on a special mission. Disobedience was 
severely punished, for if such an officer, when detailed 
for special service, hired ^ substitute, he was liable to 
be put to death and the substitute could take his office. 
Sometimes an officer was sent to take charge of a distant 
garrison for a long period, and when this was done his 
home duties were performed by another man, who tem- 
porarily occupied his house and land, and gave it back 
to the officer on his return. If the officer had a son 
old enough to perform the duty in his father’s absence, 
he was allowed to do so ; and, if he was too young, his 
maintenance was paid for out of the estate. Should 
the officer fail to arrange, before his departure, for the 
proper cultivation of his land and the discharge of his 
local duties, another could take his place after the lapse 

1 See “ Letters,” III., pp. 49 ff. From a letter of Abi-eshu’ (op. eit p. 
153 f.), we gather that the king held the merchants of Sippar ultimately 
responsible for their city’s tribute. 









AGT: OF • HAMMURABI 198 

of a year, and on his return he could not reclaim his 
land or office. When on garrison duty, or on special 
service, he ran the risk of capture by the enemy, and in 
that event his ransom was assured. For if his own 
means did not suffice, the sum had to be paid from the 
treasury of the local temple, and in the last resort by 
the state. It was specially enacted that his land, 
garden, and house were in no case to be sold to pay 
for his ransom. They were inalienably attached to the 
office he held, which appears to have been entailed in 
the male line, since he was precluded from bequeathing 
any of the property to his wife or daughter. They 
could only pass from him and his male issue through 
neglect or disobedience. 

It is not improbable that the existence of this 
specially favoured class of officer dates back to the 
earliest settlement of the Western Semites in Babylonia. 
The first of their number may well have been personal 
retainers and followers of Sumu-abum, the founder of 
the dynasty. Originally soldiers, they were probably 
assigned lands throughout the country in return for 
their service's to the king, and they continued to serve 
him by maintaining order and upholding his authority. 
In the course of time specified duties were assigned to 
them, but they retained their privileges, and they must 
have remained a very valuable body of officers, on 
whose personal loyalty the king copld always rely. 
In the case of war, they may have assisted in mobiliza- 
tion ; for the army was probably raised on a territorial 
basis, much on the lines of the corvee for public works 
which was under their control. 

By contemporary documents of the period much 
light is thrown on other classes of the population, but, 
as they were all connected with various departments in 
the commercial or agricultural life of the community, 
it will be unnecessary to describe them in further 
detail. One class perhaps deserves mention, the sur- 
geons, since lack of professional skill was rather heavily 
penalized. For if a surgeon, when called in by a noble, 
carried out an operation so unskilfully as to cause his 
death or inflict a permanent injury upon him, such as 
the loss of an eye, the punishment was amputation of 

o 



194 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

both hands. No penalty appears to have been enacted 
if the patient were a member of the middle class, but 
should the slave of such a man die as the result of an 
operation, the surgeon had to give the owner another 
slave ; and, in the event of the slave losing his eye, he 
had to pay the owner half the slave’s value. There 
was, of course, no secular class in the population which 
corresponded to the modern doctor, for the medicinal 
use of herbs and drugs was not separated from their 
employment in magic. Disease was looked upon as 
due to the agency of evil spirits, or of those that con- 
trolled them, and though many potions were doubtless 
drunk of a curative nature, they were taken at the 
instance of the magician, not of the doctor, and to the 
accompaniment of magical rites and incantations . 1 

In the religious sphere, the rise of Babylon to the 
position of capital led to a number of important 
changes, and to a revision of the Babylonian pantheon. 
Marduk, the god of Babylon, from being a compara- 
tively obscure city-god, underwent a transformation in 
proportion to the increase in his city’s importance. 
The achievements and attributes of Knlil, the chief 
Sumerian deity, were ascribed to him, and the old 
Sumerian sagas and legends, particularly those of the 
creation of the world, were rewritten in this new spirit 
by the Babylonian priesthood. The beginning of the 
process may be accurately dated to the year of Ham- 
murabi’s conquest of Rim-Sin and his subsequent con- 
trol of Nippur, the ancient centre of the old Sumerian 
faith. It does not appear that the earlier Semites, 
when they conquered that city, had ever attempted 
to modify the old traditions they found there, or to 
appropriate them for their local gods. But a new 
spirit was introduced with the triumph of the Western 
Semites. The Sumerians were then a dying race, and 
the gradual disappearance of their language as a living 
tongue was accompanied by a systematic translation, 
and a partial transformation, of their sacred literature. 
Enlil could not be entirely ousted from the position he 
had so long enjoyed, but Marduk became his greater 
son. The younger god is represented as winning his 

1 See below, p. 240. 



195 


AGE OF HAMMURABI 

position by his own valour, in coming to the help of 
the older gods when their very existence was threatened 
by the dragons of chaos ; and, having slain the monster 
of the deep, he is portrayed as creating the universe 
from her severed body.' The older legends, no doubt, 
continued to be treasured in the ancient cult-centres 
of the land, but the Babylonian versions, under royal 
sanction and encouragement, tended to gain wide 
recognition and popularity. 

Under the later kings of the First Dynasty a great 
impetus was also given to all branches of literary activity. 
The old Sumerian language still bulked largely in the 
phraseology of legal and commercial documents, as well 
as in the purely religious literature of the country. 
And, to aid them in their study of the ancient texts, 
the Semitic scribes undertook a systematic compilation 
of explanatory lists of words and ideograms— the earliest 
form of dictionary, —which continued in use into the 
Assyrian and Neo- Babylonian periods. The Sumerian 
texts, too, were copied out and furnished’ with inter- 
linear Semitic translations. The astronomical and astro- 
logical studies and records of the Sumerian priests were 
taken over, and great collections were compiled in 
combination with the early Akkadian records that had 
come down to them. A study of the Babylonian litera- 
ture afl’ords striking proof that the semitizing of the 
country led to no break, noi; set-back, in Babylonian 
culture. The older texts and traditions were taken 
over in bulk, and, except where the rank or position 
of Marduk was affected, little change or modification 
was made. The Semitic scribes no doubt developed 
their inheritance, but expansion took place on the old 
lines. 

In commercial life, too, Sumerian customs remained 
to a great extent unaltered. Taxes, rent, and prices 
continued to be paid in kind, and though the talent, 
maneh, and shekel were in use as metal weights, and 
silver was in partial circulation, no true currency was 
developed. In the sale of land, for example, even 

1 On the composite character of the Creation Series, and the historical 
lines of its development., see “The Seven Tablets of Creation, I., pp. 
lxvi. ft*. 



196 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

during the period of the Kassite kings, the purchase- 
price was settled in shekel-weights of silver, but very 
little metal actually changed hands. Various items 
were exchanged against the land, and these, in addition 
to corn, the principal medium of exchange, included 
slaves, animals, weapons, garments, etc., the value of 
each item being reckoned on the same silver basis, until 
the agreed purchase-price was made up. The early 
Semitic Babylonian, despite his commercial activity, did 
not advance beyond the transition stage between pure 
barter and a regular currency. 

One important advantage conferred by the Western 
Semite on the country of his adoption was an increase 
in the area of its commercial relations and a political 
expansion to the north and west. He systematized its 
laws, and placed its internal administration on a wider 
and more uniform basis. But the greatest and most 
far-reaching change of the Hammurabi period was that 
the common speech of the whol.e of Babylonia became 
Semitic, as • did the dominant racial element in the 
population. And it was thanks to this fact that all 
subsequent invasions of the country failed to alter the 
main features in her civilization. Such alien strains 
were absorbed in process of time, and, though they 
undoubtedly introduced fresh blends into the racial 
mixture, the Semitic element triumphed, and continued 
to receive reinforcement^ from the parent stock. The 
Sumerian race and language appear to have survived 
longest in the extreme south of the country, and we 
shall see that the rise of the Sea-Country kings may 
perhaps be regarded as their last effective effort in the 
political sphere. 



CHAPTER VI 


THE CLOSE OF THE FIRST DYNASTY OF BABYLON AND 
THE KINGS FROM THE COUNTRY OF THE SEA 

J N the dosing years of Hammurabi’s reign Babylon 
had reached the climax of her early power. The 
proud phraseology of the Prologue to his Code 
conveys the impression that the empire was solidly 
compact, and its component cities the willing recipients 
of his royal clemency and favour. And there can be 
no doubt that he owed his success in great measure to 
the efficient administration he had established under his 
personal control. His son, Samsu-iluna, inherited his 
father’s traditions, and in his letters that have survived 
we have abundant evidence that he exercised the same 
close supervision over the judicial and administrative 
officers stationed in cities distant from the capital. 
And it would appear that the first eight years of' his 
reign passed under the same peaceful , conditions, that 
had prevailed at the time of Kis accession to the throne. 
He cut two canals, and the names he gave them com- 
memorate the wealth and abundance he hoped by their 
means to bestow upon the people. It was in his third 
and fourth years that the Samsu-iluna-nagab-nukhush- 
nishi and the Samsu-iluna-khegallum Canals were 
completed, and the royal activities were then confined 
to the further adornment of the great temples of 
Babylon and Sippnr. His ninth year marks the crisis, 
not only in Samsu-iluna’s own reign, but in the early 
fortunes of the kingdom. It is then that we first hear 
of Kassite tribes appearing in force upon Babylon s 
eastern frontier, and, though Samsu-iluna doubtless 
defeated them, as he claims to have done, it is clear 
that their emergence from the foothills of Western 



198 HISTORY OF BABYLON V 

Elam, followed speedily by their penetration of Baby- 
lonian territory, was the signal for setting the empire 
in a blaze. 

They must have met with some success before their 
onslaught was arrested by the army sent against them , 1 
and the renewal of hostilities in any form must have 
aroused once more the fighting instinct of the Elamite 
border tribes, which had been temporarily laid to rest by 
Hammurabi’s victories. Hammurabi’s old antagonist, 
ltim-Sin himself, had long been living in comparative 
retirement, and, in spite of his advanced age, the news 
fired him to fresh efforts. His name was still on the 
lips of those who had fought under him, and since the 
death of his conqueror, Hammurabi, his prestige must 
have tended to increase. When, therefore, his native 
land of Emutbal, allying itself with the neighbouring 
Elamite district of Idamaraz, followed up the Kassite 
onslaught by an organized invasion, Rim-Sin raised a 
revolt in Southern Babylonia, aryl succeeded in gaining; 
possession of Erech and Nisin. It would appear that 
the Babylonian garrison in Larsa, too, was overcome, 
and that the city passed once more under the inde- 
pendent control of its old ruler. 

With the whole south of the country in arms against 
him, we may conjecture that Samsu-iluna detailed suffi- 
cient forces to contain Rim-Sin, while he dealt with the 
invasion of Babylon’s hpme-territory. He had little 
difficulty in disposing of the Elamites, and, marching 
southwards, he defeated Rim-Sin’s forces and reoccu- 
pied Larsa . 2 It may be that it was at this time he 
captured, or burnt, Rim-Sin alive , 3 and that the palace 
where this took place was the rebel leader’s old palace 
at Larsa, which he had been making his headquarters. 
But the revolt 'was not completely subdued. Ur and 
Erech still held out, and it was only after a further 
campaign that Samsu-iluna recaptured them and razed 

1 We may assume that they owed the partial success of the raid to their 
mobility, although on this occasion, their earliest invasion of Babylonian 
territory, the horse probably played a still more useful part in the retreat ; 
see further, p. 215 f. 

2 Such appears to be the most probable explanation of the duplicate copies 
of the sale-contract from Tell Sifr, in the neighbourhood of Larsa, with their 
variant dates by formula) of Rim Sin and Samsu-iluna ; see above, p. 98. 

* Cf. “Chronicles concerning early Babylonian Kings,* ’ II., p. 18. 








KINGS 


their wall*. ' He tori t (juil succeeded in crushing the 
first series of organized attacks upon the empire, but 
the effort of dealing simultaneously with invasion and 
mtetnaV revolt Vnd evidently strained t k national 
resources. Garrisons had probably been reduced in 
distant provinces, others had been cut down in order 
to reinforce his armies in the field, and it is not sur- 
prising that in his twelfth year these outlying districts 
should have followed the prevailing lead. In that year 
it is recorded that all the lands revolted against him. 1 * 

We may with some confidence trace the main 
source of Samsu-iluna’s fresh troubles to the action 


of Iluma-ilum, who, probably at this time, headed a revolt 
in the Sea-Country on the shore of the Persian Gulf, 
and declared his independence of Babylon. Samsu- 
iluna’s answer was to raise further levies and lead them 


against his new foe. The subsequent battle was fiercely 
contested on the very shore of the Gulf, for a later 
chronicler records thjft the bodies of the slain were 
carried off by the sea ; yet it was either indecisive, or 
resulted in the discomfiture of the Babylonians. We 
may conjecture that the king was prevented from 
employing his full forces to stamp out the rebellion, in 
consequence of trouble in other quarters. For in the 
following two years we find him destroying the cities 
Kisurra and Sabum, and defeating the leader of a 
rebellion in the home-territory of Babylon itself. 3 

Iluma-ilum was thus afforded the opportunity of con- 
solidating his position, and we may perhaps see evidence 
of his growing influence in Southern Babylonia in the 
fact that at Tell Sifr not a single document has been 
found dated in a later year of Samsu-iluna’s reign than 
the tenth.* In view of the fact that the central city of 
Nippur eventually passed under Iluma-ilum’s control, we 


1 Cf. the date-form rln for Samsu-iluna’s twelfth year, which incite full 
form commemorated some royal act “after all the lands had revolted. Since 
the success against Ur and Erecli was commemorated in the preceding year, 
the revolt in question can hardly refer to the troubles with Rim-Sin and the 
Elamites, but must be taken as implying that other provinces were now 
making a bid for independence. , 

* file formula for his fourteenth year commemorates his overthrow ot 
"the usurping king, whom the Akkadians had caused to lead a rebellion. 

* The latest document from Larsa (Scukcra) is dated in his twelfth year ; 
see above, p. 104 f. 



200 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

may probably assume that he was already encroaching 
northwards, and that territory in the south of Sumer, 
perhaps including the city of Larsa, passed now into his 
possession. In support of this suggestion it may be 
noted that, when Samsu-iluna, after suppressing the 
Akkadian usurper, began repairing the damage wrought 
in six years of continuous fighting, it is at Nisin and at 
Sippar that he rebuilds the ruined walls, and in Emutbal 
that he repairs the great garrison-fortresses. Nisin may 
well have marked the most southerly limit of Babylon’s 
control, and we may picture the gradual expansion of 
the Sea-Country, as the power of Babylon declined. The 
“ rebellious land,” which Samsu-iluna boasts that he 
overthrew in his twentieth year, was perhaps the Sea- 
Country, for we know that he conducted a second 
campaign against Iluma-ilum, who this time secured a 
victory. If the Babylonian army succeeded in retreating 
in comparatively good order, it would have formed a 
sufficient justification for Samsu-iluna’s boast that he 
had given the rebellious land a lesson. 

The fringe of territory in the extreme south-east of 
Babylonia always exhibited a tendency to detach itself 
from the upper riverain districts of Babylonia proper. 
Forming the littoral of the Persian Gulf, and encroaching 
in its northern area upon Elam, it consisted of great 
stretches of rich alluvial soil interspersed with areas 
of marsh-land and swamps, which tended to increase 
where the rivers approached the coast. The swamps 
undoubtedly acted as a protection to the country, for 
while tracks and fords were known to the inhabitants, 
a stranger from the north-west would in many places 
have been completely baffled by them. The natives, 
too, in their light reed-boats could escape from one 
district to another, pushing along known passages and 
eluding their pursuers, when once the tall reeds had 
closed behind them. The later Assyrians at the height 
of their power succeeded in subduing a series of revolts 
in the Sea-Country, but it was only by enlisting the 
hel]> of native guides and by commandeering the light 
canoes of neighbouring villages. The earlier kings 
of Babylonia had always been content to leave the 
swamp-dwellers to themselves, and at most to exact 



201 


SEA-COUNTRY KINGS 

a nominal recognition of suzerainty. But it is probable 
that fresh energy had been lately introduced into the 
district, and of this lluma-ilum doubtless took advantage 
when he succeeded, not only in leading a revolt, but in 
establishing an independent kingdom. 

It is clear that the pressure exerted upon Babylonia 
by the West-Semitic migration must have tended to 



Fio. 44. 

SWAMP IN SOUTHERN BABYLONIA OR THE SEA-COUNTRY. 

An Assyrian conquest of the country is here represented, amid all the 
difficulties presented by its swamps and reed-beds. 

[After a bas-relief at Nineveh.] 

displace sections of the existing population. The 
direction of advance was always down-stream, and the 
pressure continued in force even after the occupation of 
the country. Those strains in the population, which 
differed most radically from the invaders, would be the 
more likely to seek sanctuary elsewhere, and, with the 
exception of Elam, the Sea-Country offered the only 




202 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

possible line of retreat. We may assume, therefore, 
that the marsh-dwellers of the south had been rein- 
forced for a considerable period by Sumerian refugees, 
and, though the first three rulers of the new kingdom 
bore Semitic names and were probably Semites, the 
names of later rulers of the Sea-Country suggest that 
the Sumerian element in the population afterwards 
secured the control, 1 no doubt with the assistance of 
fresh drafts from their own kindred after their successful 
occupation of Southern Babylonia. Under the more 
powerful kings of the Second Dynasty, the kingdom 
may have assumed a character resembling that of its 
predecessors in Babylonia. The centre of administra- 
tion was certainly shifted for a time to Nippur, and 
possibly even further north, but the Sea-Country, as 
the home-land of the dynasty, must have always been 
regarded as a dominant province of the kingdom, and it 
offered a secure refuge to its rulers in the event of their 
being driven again within its borders. In spite of its 
extensive marshes, it was capable of sustaining its 
inhabitants in a considerable degree of comfort, for the 
date-palm flourished luxuriantly, and the areas under 
cultivation must have been at least as productive as 
those further to the north-west. Moreover, the zebu, or 
humped cattle of Sumer, thrived in the swamps and 
water-meadows, and not only formed an important 
source of supply, but were used for ploughing in the 
agricultural districts.* 

With such a country as a base of operations, pro- 
tected in no small degree by its marshes, it is not 
surprising that the Sea-Country kings should have met 
with considerable success in their efforts at extending 
the area of territory under their control. 

After his second conflict with Iluma-ilum, Samsu- 

1 Such names as Ishkibal, Gulkishar, Pesh gal -digram ash, A-dara kalanm, 
Akur-ul-ana and Melam-kurkura are all Sumerian*! The last kin# of the 
dynasty, Ea-gamil, hears a Semitic name, and Shushshi, the name of 
Ishkibal’s brother, is probably Semitic. 

' l The zebu, or Jl os indirus , is represented on Sumerian sculpture from 
Lagash, dating from the middle of the third millennium n.c. (cf. “Sumer 
and Akkad, p. 00, Fig”. 21) ; men are represented ploughing with it in a 
Kassite seal -impression ('see above, p. 17* r >, Fig. 40) ; and it formed one of the 
most valued classes of booty from the Sea-Country at the time of the later 
Assyriau empire (see Fig. 4o). 



203 


SEA-COUNTRY KINGS 

iluna appears to have reconciled himself to the loss of 
his southern province, and to have made no further 
effort at reconquest. He could still boast of successes 
in other districts, for he destroyed the walls of Shakhna 
and Zarkhanum, doubtless after the suppression of a 
revolt, and he strengthened the fortifications of Kish. 
He also retained the control of the Euphrates route to 
Syria, and he doubtless encouraged the commercial 
enterprise of Babylon in that direction as a set-off to 



Fig. 46. 

THE ZKRU OB HUMPED OXEN OF THE BEA-COUNTRY. 

They are hero represented as being driven off from the Sea-Country, along 
with other booty, under a convoy of Assyrian soldiers. 

[Aftor a bas-relief from Nineveh in the British Museum.] 

his losses in the south. We possess an interesting 
illustration of the close relations he maintained with the 
west in the date- formula for the twenty-sixth year of 
his reign, which tells us that he procured a monolith 
from the great mountain of the land of Ainurru. J his 
must have been quarried in the Lebanon, and trans- 
ported overland to the Euphrates, and thence conveyed 






204 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


by kclek to the capital. From the details he gives us 
of its size, it appears to have measured some thirty-six 
feet in length, and it was no small achievement to have 
brought it so far to Babylon. 

During this period of comparative tranquillity 
Samsu-iluna devoted himself once more to rebuilding 
and beautifying E-sagila and the temples of Kish and 
Sippar ; but in his twenty-eighth year Babylon suffered 
a fresh shock, which appears to have resulted in still 
further loss of territory. In that year he claims to have 
slain ladi-khabum and Muti-khurshana, two leaders of 
an invasion, or a revolt, of which we have no details. 
But it is clca r that the victory, if such it was, resulted 
in further trouble, for in the following two years no 
fresh date-formula; were promulgated, and it is probable 
that the king himself was absent from the capital. It 
is significant that no document has been recovered at 
Nippur which is dated after Samsu-iluna’s twenty-ninth 
year, although in the preceding period, from the thirty- 
first year of .Hammurabi onward, when the city first 
passed into Babylon’s possession, nearly every year is 
well represented in the dated series . 1 2 It is difficult not 
to conclude that Samsu-iluna now lost the control of 
that city, and, since one of the documents from Nippur 
is dated in Iluma-ilum’s reign, it can only have passed 
into the latter’s possession. Further evidence of the 
diminishing territory of Babylon may be seen in the 
fact that Samsu-iluna should have rebuilt the old line 
of fortresses, founded by his ancestor Suma-la-ilum at a 
time when the kingdom was in its infancy.* This work 
was doubtless undertaken when he foresaw the necessity 
of defending the Akkadian border, and he must have 
lost one at least of the fortresses, Dur-Zakar, when 
Nippur was taken. His activitives during his dosing 
years were confined to the north and west, and to 
the task of keeping open the Euphrates route. For he 
cut a canal beside Kar-Sippar, recovered possession of 
Saggaratum, and probably destroyed the cities of 
Arkum and Amal. His defeat of an Amorite force 

1 Cf. Poebel, “Legal and Business Documents,” ]>. 1L>; and Cliiera, 
tl Legal and Administrative Documents,** j>. 25. 

2 See above, p. J 18 f. 



SEA-COUNTRY KINGS 205 

some two years before his death is of interest as proving 
that the Western Semites of Akkad, nearly two cen- 
turies after their settlement in the country, were ex- 
periencing the same treatment from their own stock 
that they themselves had caused to the land of their 
adoption. 

Samsu-iluna, with the possible exception of Ammi- 
ditana, was the last great king of the West-Seinitic 
dynasty. It is true that his son Abi-eshu’ made a fresh 
attempt to dislodge Iluma-ilum from his hold upon 
Central and Southern Babylonia. A late chronicle 
records that he took the offensive and marched against 
Iluma-ilum.' It would seem that his attack was in the 
nature of a surprise, and that he succeeded in cutting off 
the king and part of his forces, possibly on their return 
from some other expedition. It is clear that he came 
into touch with him in the neighbourhood of the Tigris, 
and probably forced him to take refuge in a fortress, 
since he attempted to cut off his retreat by damming 
the river. He is said to have succecdedt in damming 
the stream, but he failed to catch Iluma-ilum. The 
chronicle records no further conflict between the two, 
and we may assume that he then adopted his father’s 
later policy of leaving the Sea- Country in possession of 
its conquered territory. In some of his broken date- 
formula* wc have echoes of a few further campaigns, and 
wc know that he cut the Abi-eshu’ Canal, and built a 
fortress at the gate of the Tigris, which he also named 
after himself, Dur- Abi-eshu’. This was probably a 
frontier fortification, erected for the defence of the 
river at the point where it passed from Babylon’s area 
of control to that of the Sea-Country. He also built 
the town of Lukhaia on the Arakhtu Canal in the im- 
mediate neighbourhood of Babylon. But both Abi- 
eshu’ and his successors on the throne give evidence 
of having become more and more engrossed in cult- 
observances. The supply of temple-furniture begins to 
have for them the importance that military success had 
for their fathers. And it is a symptom of decadence 
that, even in the religious sphere, they are as much con- 
cerned with their own worship as with that of the gods. 

1 Cf. “ Chronicles concerning Early Kings,” II., p. 21. 



206 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

It is significant that Abi-eshu’ should have named 
one of his years of rule by his decoration of a statue 
of Entemena, the early patesi of Lagash, who had been 
accorded divine honours, and, at some period after 
Hammurabi’s occupation of that city, had received a 
cult-centre of his own in Babylon. For the act indi- 
cates an increased interest, on Abi-eshu ’s part, in the 
deification of royalty. This honour was peculiarly 
associated with the possession of Nippur, the central 
city and shrine of the country, and Babylon had adopted 
the practice of deification for her kings after Nippur 
had been annexed by Hammurabi. Though the city 
had now passed from Babylon’s control, Abi-eshu’ did 
not relinquish the privilege his father and grandfather 
had legitimately enjoyed. Since Babylon no longer 
possessed the central shrine of Enlil, in which his own 
divine statue should have been set up, he dedicated one 
in Enid's local temple at Babylon. But not content 
with that he fashioned no less than five other statues 
of himself, which he set up in the temples of other gods 
at Babylon, Sippar and elsewhere . 1 

His three successors followed the same practice, and 
Ammi-ditana and Ammi-zaduga, his son and grandson, 
have left descriptions of some of these cult-images of 
themselves . 2 A favourite character, in which the king 
was often represented, was holding a lamb for divina- 
tion, and another was in the attitude of prayer. The 
later kings of the First Dynasty love, too, to dwell on 

1 One of these statues was set up in E-gishshirgal, a name which corre- 
sponds to that of the old Moon-temple at l-r ; and on this evidence Boehel 
has assumed that Abi-eshu’ succeeded in getting 1 control of Southern Baby- 
lonia (cf. “ Legal and Business Documents,” p. 120). Hut a fuller form of 
the date has since been recovered, showing that this E-gishshirgal, and 
doubtless the temple of Enlil coupled with it, were in Babylon. It would 
seem therefore that after Samsu-iluna had lost his hold upon the great centre 
of the Moon cult in the south, a local temple for the Moon-god’s worship was 
established at Babylon, under the ancient name, in which the old cult-practices 
were reproduced as far as possible. Similarly, having lost Nippur, a new 
shrine to Enlil was built at Babylon, or an old one enlarged and beautified. 
By such means it was doubtless hoped to secure a continuance of the gods’ 
favour, and an ultimate recovery of their cities ; and the continual dedi- 
cation of royal images, though doubtless a sign of royal deification, must also 
have been intended to bring the king’s claims to the divine notice. 

2 As Ammi-ditana appears to have recovered Nippur for a time towards 
the end of his reign, and as Ammi-zaduga probably retained it during bis 
earlier years (see below, p. 200 f.), Babylon could legitimately claim her former 
privileges during the period of occupation. 



207 


SEA-COUNTRY KINGS 

their sumptuous votive offerings. Marduk is supplied 
with innumerable weapons of red gold, and the Sun- 
god’s shrine at Sippar is decorated with solar disks of 
precious dm/m- stone, inlaid with red gold, lapis-lazuli, 
and silver. Great reliefs, with representations of rivers 
and mountains, were east in bronze and set up in 
the temples ; and Samsu-ditana, the last of his line, 
records among his offerings to the gods the dedication 
to Sarpanitum of a rich silver casket for perfumes. 

Incidentally, these references afford striking proof 
of the wealth Babylon had now acquired, due no doubt 
to her increased commercial activities. Elam on the 
one side and Syria on the other 1 had furnished her with 
imports of precious stone, metal, and wood ; and her 
craftsmen had learnt much from foreign teachers. In 
spite of the contraction of Hammurabi’s empire, the 
life of the people in both the town and country districts 
of Akkad was not materially altered. The organized 
supervision of all departments of national activity, 
pastoral, agricultural ail’d commercial, which the nation 
owed in great measure to Hammurabi, was continued 
under these later kings ; and some of the royal letters 
that have been reeovered show that orders on compara- 
tively unimportant matters continued to be issued in 
the king’s name. We know, too, of a good many 
public works carried out by Ammi-ditana, Abi-eshu’s 
son. He cut only one canal, and he .built fortresses 
for the protection of others, and named them after 
himself. Thus, in addition to the Ammi-ditana Canal, 
we learn of a Dur- Ammi-ditana, which he erected on 
the Zilakum Canal, and another fortress of the same 
name on the Me-Enlil Canal. He strengthened the 
wall of Ishkun-Marduk, which was also on the Zilakum, 
and built Mashkan- Ammi-ditana and the wall of K ar- 
Shamash, both on the bank of the Euphrates . 2 

1 The bronze-casting may well have been learnt from Elam ; and we have 
striking evidence of increased relations with the west in the fact that under 
Ammi-zaduga a district of Sippar was known as Amurrt, from its Amorite 
quarter or settlement ; cf. Meissner, 44 Altbabylonisrhes Privatrecht,” p. 41 f., 
No. 42, and Meyer, 44 Gescliichte,” 1., ii., p. 4(>7 f. 

2 His other building activities included the founding of a royal suburb 
at Babylon, named Shag-dugga, on the bank of the Arakhtu Canal, where he 
built himself a palace ; while at Sippar he once more rebuilt the iiagfim, or 
spacious Cloister attached to the temple of the Sun-god. 



208 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

The systematic fortification of the rivers and canals 
may perhaps be interpreted as marking an advance of 
the frontier southward, in consequence of which it was 
advisable to protect the crops and the water-supply of 
the districts thus recovered from the danger of sudden 
raids. On two occasions Ammi-ditana claims, in rather 
vague terms, to have freed his land from danger, once 
by restoring the might of Marduk, and later on by 
loosing the pressure from his land ; and that, in his 
seventeenth year, he should have claimed to have con- 
quered Arakhab. perhaps referred to as •'the Sumerian,” 1 
is an indication that the Sea-Country kings found ready 
assistance trom the older population of the South. 
Moreover, of the Inter West -Semitic kings, Ammi- 
ditana alone appears to have made headway against 
the encroachments of the Sea-Country. The most 
conclusive proof of his advance is to be seen in the 
date-formula for his thirty-seventh year, which record? 
that he destroyed the wall of Nisin , 2 proving that 
he had perpetrated to the south of Nippur. That 
Nippur itself was held by him for a time is more than 
probable, especially as one of his building-inscriptions, 
still unpublished, is said to have been found there 3 4 : 
and we know also, from a Neo- Babylonian copy of a 
similar text, that he claimed the title “King of Sumer 
and Akkad .” 3 Under him, then, Babylon recovered a 
semblance of her former strength, but we may con- 
jecture that the Sea-Country retained its hold on Uarsa 
and- the southern group of cities. 

We are furnished with a third valuable synchronism 
between the dynasties of Babylon and of the south by 
the reference to Ammi-ditana’s destruction of the wall 
of Nisin, for the date-formula adds that this had been 
erected by the people of Damki-ilishu. The ruler 
referred to is obviously the third king in the dynasty 
of the Sea-Country, who succeeded Itti-ili nibi upon the 

1 Cf. Poebel, “ Le^al and Business Documents/’ p. 121, and Schorr, 
“ Urkunden,” p. <>02. 

2 For references, see Schorr, op. rit ,, p. 004. 

3 According to a verbal communication made by Prof. Hilprecht to 
Dr. Poebel. 

4 Cf. “ Letters and Inscriptions of Hammurabi,” III., p. 207 f. ; in the 
same inscription he also lays claim to the rule of Amurru. 



209 


SEA-COUNTRY KINGS 

throne . 1 We may conclude that it was in his reign, or 
shortly after it, that Ammi-ditana succeeded in recover- 
ing Nisin, after having already annexed Nippur on his 
southward advance. In his thirty-fourth year, two 
years before the capture of Nisin, he had dedicated an 
image of Samsu-iluna in the temple E-namtila, and we 
may perhaps connect this tribute to his grandfather with 
the fact that in his reign Ilabylon had last enjoyed the 
distinction conferred by the suzerainty of Nippur. 

In the year following the recovery of Nisin Ammi- 
zaduga succeeded his father on the throne, and since 
he ascribes the greatness of his kingdom to Enlil, 
and not to Marduk or any other god, we may see in 
this a further indication that Babylon continued to 
control his ancient shrine. But the remaining date- 
formulas for Ammi-zaduga’s reign do not suggest that 
Ammi-ditana’s conquests were held permanently. A 
succession of religious dedications is followed in his 
tenth year by the conventional record that he loosed 
the pressure of his land, suggesting that *his country 
had been through a period of conflict ; and, though in 
the following year he built a fortress, Dur-Ammi-zaduga 
“ at the mouth of the Euphrates," the nearly unbroken 
succession of votive acts, commemorated during his re- 
maining years and in the reign of his son Samsu-ditana, 
makes it probable that the kings of Sea-Country were 


1 It is most improbable that be should be identified with Dainik-ilishu, 
the last king 1 of the earlier Dynasty of Nisin, who perished one hundred and 
thirty-seven years before this time. It is true that Nabonidus, to judge from 
bis building-inscriptions, evinces an interest in the past, but in many ways be 
was a unique monarch and he lived in a later age. These early date-formula*, 
on the other hand, always refer to contemporaneous events, not to matters of 
archaeological interest. We know definitely that lluma-ilum (the first JSea- 
Country king) was the contemporary of Samsu-iluna and Ahi-eshu’, and it is 
not unreasonable to find a reference to Damik-ilishu (the third Sea-Country 
king) in the last year of Ammi-ditana, Abi-esbu's son. Granting this assump- 
tion, there follows the important inference that the exceptionally long period 
of one hundred and fiftu n years, assigned by the Kings’ List to the reigns of 
the first two kings of the Sea-Countrv, is a little exaggerated. The accuracy 
of some of the longer figures assigned in the List to kings of this dynasty has 
long been called in question (cf. “Chronicles,” 1., pp. Ill 8l ' 1 ' 

above, p. 100), and the synchronism justifies this doubt. While the historical 
character of the Second Dynasty has been amply confirmed, we must not 
regard the total duration assigned to it in the Kings’ List as more than 
approximately correct. Under these circumstances detailed dates have not 
been assigned to members of that dynasty in the Dvnastic List of Kings ; 
see Appendix JL, p. 320. 


P 





gradually 

temporari] 


some of*thf ^ 


But it was not from the Sea-Countrythatthe "\Vest- 
Semitic Dynasty of Babylon received its death-felow. 
In the late chronicle, which has thrown so much light 
on the earlier conflicts of this troubled period, we read * 
of another invasion, which not only brought disaster to 
Babylon but probably put an end to her first dynasty. 
The* chronicler states that during the reign of Samsu- 
ditana, the last king of the dynasty, “ men of the 
land of Khatti marched against the land of Akkad,” 
in other words, that Hittites from Anatolia 1 2 * marched 
down the Euphrates and invaded Babylonia from the 
north-west. The chronicle does not record the result 


of the invasion , 8 but we may probably connect it with 
the fact that the Kassite king Agum-kakrime brought 
back to Babylon from Khani, the old Khana on the 
middle Euphrates , 4 * the cult-images of Marduk and 
Sarpanitum and installed them once more with great “ 
pomp and ceremony within their shrines in E-sagilf. 
We may legitimately conclude that they were carried 
off by the Hittites during their invasion in Samsu- 
ditana’s reign. 

If the Hittites succeeded in despoiling Babylon of 


1 Success doubtless fluctuated from one side to the other, Ammi-zaduga in 
one of his later years commemorating that he had brightened his land like 
the Sun-god, and Samsu-ditana recording that he had restored his dominion 
with the weapon of Marduk. How far these rather vague claims were justified * 
it is impossible to say. Apart from votive acts, the only definite record of * 
this period is that of Amrni-zaduga’s sixteenth year, in which he celebrates 
the cutting of the Ammi-zaduga-nukhush-nishi Canal. 

2 We may confidently regard the phrase as referring to the Anatoliftt # ( . 

Hittites, whose capital at Boghaz Keui must have been founded far farad* 
than the end of the fifteenth century when we know that it bore the name of 
Khatti. It is true that, after the southern migration of the Hittites m*fcbe 
twelfth century, Northern Syria was known as u the land of Khatti,” fopt/If 
the invasion of Babylonia in Samsu-ditana’s reign had been made by Semitic 
tribes from Syria, no doubt the chronicler would have employed the correct 
designation, Amurru, which is used in an earlier section of the text ^for 
Sargon’s invasion of Syria. In the late omen-literature, too, the use of the 
early geographical terms is not confused. Both chronicles and omen-texts 
are transcripts of early written originals, not late compilations based op 
oral tradition. *■ 

* The reason for the omission is that the whole of this section of the text 
had evidently been left out by the scribe in error, and he afterwards only had 
room to insert the first line ; cf. “ Chronicles,” II., p. 22, n. 1. 

4 This district was in the ^>ath of the Hittite rain, and its occupation by a 

section of the invaders was evidently more permanent thau that of Babylon. 







her mosfc swired clear that they must have * 

raided the city, and they may even have occupied it for f 
» time. Thus the West-Semitic Dynasty of Babylon 
may have been brought to an end by these Hittite 
conquerors, and Samsu-ditana himself may have fallen 
in defence of his own capital. But there is no reason 




for supposing that the Hittites occupied Babylon for 
long. Even if their success was complete, they 
would soon have returned to their own country, laden 
with heavy spoil ; and they doubtless left some of their 


number in occupation of Khana on their withdrawal up 
the Euphrates. Southern Babylonia may also have 
suffered in the raid, but we may assume that its force 


was felt most in the north, and that the kings of the Sea- 
Country profited by the disaster. We have as yet no 
direct evidence of their occupation of Babylon, but, as 
their kingdom had been Babylon’s most powerful rival 
prior to the Hittite raid, it may well have increased its 


borders after her fall. • 


To this period we may probably assfgn a local 
dynasty of Erech, represented by the names of Sin- 
gashid, Sin-gamil and An-am. From bricks and 
foundation-records recovered at Warka, the site of the 
ancient city, we know that the first of these rulers 
restored the old temple of E-anna and built himself a 
new palace . 1 But the most interesting^ of Sin-gashid’s 
records is a votive cone, commemorating the dedication of 
E-kankal to Lugal-banda and the goddess Ninsun, for, 
when concluding his text with a prayer for abundance, 
he inserts a list or tariff, stating the maximum-price 
which he had fixed for the chief articles of commerce 


during his reign . 2 Sin-gamil was An-am’s immediate 
predecessor on the throne of Erech, and during his reign 
the latter dedicated on his behalf a temple to Nergal in 
the town of Usipara . 8 An-am was the son of a certain 


1 Cf. “Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.,”XXI., pi. 12, and King, “ Proc. 
Soc. Bibl. Arch.,” XXXVII., p. 2? f. 

* See “Cun. Texts,” XXI., pi. 1ft ff., and cf. Thuroau-Dangin, “KOnigs- 
inschriften/* p. 222 f. The purchasing power of one shekel of silver is fixed 
at three gwr of corn, or twelve manehs of wool, or ten manehs of copper, or 
thirty hn of wood. The chief interest of the record is its proof that at this 
period the values of copper and silver stood in the ratio of GUO *. 1 (cf- Meyer, 
"Geschichte” I., ii., p. 512). 

8 Cf. “ Cun. Texts,” XXL, pi. 17. 



212 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


Bel-shemea, and his principal work was the restoration 
of the wall of Ercch, the foundation of which he 
ascribes to the semi-mythical ruler Gilgamesh . 1 

Doubtless other local kingdoms arose during the 
period following Babylon’s temporary disappearance as 
a political force, but we have recovered no traces of 
them , 2 and the only fact of which we are certain is the 
continued succession of the Sea-Country kings. To 
one of these rulers, Gulkishar, reference is made upon a 
boundary stone of the twelfth century, drawn up in the 
reign of Enlil-nadin-apli, an early king of the F ourth 
Dynasty. On it he is given the title of King of the Sea- 
Country, which is also the late chronicler’s designation 
for E-gamil, the last member of the dynasty, in the 
account he has left us of the Ivassite invasion. Such 
evidence seems to show that the administrative centre 
of their rule was established at those periods in the 
south ; but the inclusion of the dynasty in the Kings’ 
List is best explained on the assumption that at least 
some of its later members imposed their suzerainty 
over a wider area . 3 * * * * 8 They were evidently the only stable 
line of rulers in a period after the most powerful 
administration the country had yet known had been 
suddenly shattered. The land had suffered much, 
not only from the Hittite raid, but also during the 
continuous conflicts of more than a century that pre- 
ceded the final fall of Babylon. It must have been 
then that many of the old Sumerian cities of Southern 
and Central Babylonia were deserted, after being burned 
down and destroyed ; and they were never afterwards 


1 See Hilprecht, ^Old Bab. Inscriptions/’ I., pi. 15, No. 2(5. A tablet 1ms 
been recovered dated in the reign of An-am, and another of the same type is 
dated in the reign of Arad-shasha, whom we may therefore regard as another 
king of this local dynasty ; cf. Scheil, “Orient. Lit.-Zeit.,” 1005, col. 051, and 
Thureau-Dangin, op. cit., p. 238. The style of writing on these tablets is 
rather later than that of the First Dynasty of Babylon. 

2 For Pukhia, son of Asiru and king of the land of Khurshitu, see “ Sum. 

and Akk.,” p. 287. Khurshitu may have been the name of a district on the 

Ak-su, a tributary of the Adhein, since a brick from his palaco is said to have 

been found at Tua-kliurmati on that stream ; cf. Scheil, “ Itec. de trav.,” XVI., 
p. 186 ; XIX., p. 64. The region of King Manabaltcl’s rule (cf. Pinches, 

“ Proc. Soc. Bird. Arch.,” XXI., p. 158) is quite uncertain, but the archaic 

style of the writing of the tablet, dated in his reign, suggests that he was a 
contemporary of one of the earlier West-Semitic kings. 

8 See above, p. 105 f. 



SEA-COUNTRY KINGS 213 

re-occupied. Lagash, Umma, Shuruppak, Kisurra and 
Adab play no part in the subsequent history of 
Babylonia. 

Of the fortunes of Babylon at this time we know 
nothing, but the fact that the Kassites should have 
made the city their capital shows that the economic 
forces, which had originally raised her to that position, 
were still in operation. The Sumerian elements in the 
population of Southern Babylonia may now have en- 
joyed a last period of influence, and their racial survival 
in the Sea-Country may in part explain its continual 
striving for independence. But in Babylonia as a whole 
the effects of three centuries of West-Semitic ride were 
permanent. When, after the Kassite conquest, Babylon 
emerges once more into view, it is apparent that the 
traditions inherited from her first empire have undergone 
small change. 



CHAPTER VII 


THE KASSITE DYNASTY AND ITS HEI.ATIONS WITH 
EC! Y FT AN1) THE lllTTITE EM HU E 

T HE Kassite conquest of Babylonia, though it met 
with immediate success in a great part of the 
country, was a gradual process in the south, 
being carried out by independent Kassite chieftains. 
The Sea-Country kings continued for a time their 
independent existence ; and even after that dynasty 
was brought to an end, the struggle for the south went 
on. It was after a further period of conflict that the 
Kassite domination was completed, and the adminis- 
tration of the whole country centred once more in 
Babylon. It is fortunate for Babylonia that the new 
invaders did not appear in such numbers as to over- 
whelm the existing population. The probability has 
long been recognized that they were Aryan by race, and 
we may with some confidence regard them as akin to 
the later rulers' of Mitanni, who imposed themselves 
upon the earlier non-Iranian population of Subartu, or 
Northern Mesopotamia. Like the Mitannian kings, the 
Kassites of Babylonia were a ruling caste or aristoc- 
racy, and, though they doubtless brought with them 
numbers of humbler followers, their domination did 
not affect the linguistic nor the racial character of the 
country in any marked degree. In some of its aspeets 
we may compare their rule to that of Turkey in the 
Tigris and Euphrates valley. They give no evidence 
of having possessed a high degree of culture, and 
though they gradually adopted the civilization of 
Babylon, they tended for long to keep themselves 
aloof, retaining their native names along with their 
separate nationality. They were essentially a practical 
people and produced successful administrators. The 



UNDER THE KASSITES 215 

chief gain they brought to Babylon was an improved 
method of time-reckoning. In place of the unwieldy 
system of date-formulae, inherited by the Semites from 
the Sumerians, under which each year was known by 
an elaborate title taken from some great event or cult- 
observance, the Kassites introduced the simpler plan 
of dating by the years of the king’s reign. And we 
shall see that it was directly owing to the political 
circumstances of their occupation that the old system 
of land tenure, already to a great extent undermined by 
the Western Semites, was still further modified. 

But, on the material side, the greatest change they 
effected in the life of Babylonia was due to their intro- 
duction of the horse. There can be little doubt that 
they were a horse-keeping race , 1 and the success of their 
invasion may in large part be traced to their greater 
mobility. Hitherto asses and cattle had been employed 
for all purposes of draught and carriage, but, with 
the appearance of the Kassites, the horse suddenly 
becomes the beast of burden throughout Western Asia. 
Before their time “ the ass of the mountain,” as it was 
designated in Babylonia, was a great rarity, the earliest 
reference to it occurring in the age of Hammurabi . 2 In 
that period we have evidence that Kassite tribes were 
alieady forming settlements in the western districts of 
Elam, and when from time to time small parties of 
them made their way into the Babylonian plain to be 
employed as harvesters , 3 they doubtless carried their 


1 Proof that the Aryans were horse-keepers may be seen in the numerous 
Iranian proper names which include asvu (aspa), “ horse,” as a component ; 
see dusti, “ Iran. Namenbuch,” p. 480, and cf. Meyer, “ Geschichte,” I., ii., 
p. 579. 

2 It is on a text of that period that we find the first mention of the horse 
in antiquity ; cf. Ungnad, “ Orient. Lit.-Zeit.,” 1907, col. 638 f., and King, 
“Journ. of Hellenic Studies,” XXXI II., p. 359. A reference to one also 
occurs in a letter of the early Babylonian period (cf. iC Cun. Texts in the 
Brit. Mus.,” IV., pi. 1), but, to judge from the writing, this is probably rather 
later than the time ol Hammurabi. It is immediately after the Kassite period 
that we have evidence of the adoption of the horse as a divine symbol, doubt- 
less that of a deity introduced by the Kassites ; see Plate XXII., opposite p. 254. 

3 Some First Dynasty tablets record the issue of rations to certain Kassites, 
who were obviously employed as labourers, probably for getting in the harvest 
(cf. IJngnad, “ Beitr. zur Assyr. VI , No. f>, p. 22) ; and in a list of proper 
names of the same period (cf. “ Cun. Texts,” VI., pi. 23) a Kassite man, (awil) 
sdbum Kauhshu, bears the name Warad-lbari, perhaps a Semitic rendering of 
an original Kassite name. 



216 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

goods with them in the usual way. The usefulness 
of horses imported in this manner would have ensured 
their ready sale to the Babylonians, who probably 
retained the services of their owners to tend the strange 
animals. But the early Kassite immigrants must have 
been men of a simple and unprogressive type, for in all 
the contract-literature of the period we find no trace of 
their acquiring wealth, or engaging in the commercial 
activities of their adopted country. The only evidence 
of their employment in other than a menial capacity is 
supplied by a contract of Ammi-ditana’s reign, which 
records a tw r o-years’ lease of an uncultivated field taken 
by a Kassite for farming. 1 2 

The Kassite raid into Babylonian territory in Samsu- 
iluna’s reign * may have been followed by others of a 
like character, but it was only at the time of the later 
kings of the Sea-Country that the invaders succeeded in 
effecting a permanent foothold in Northern Babylonia. 
According to the Kings’ List the founder of the Third 
Dynasty was Gandash, and w r e ffcive obtained confirma- 
tion of the retord in a Neo-Babylonian tablet purporting 
to contain a copy of one of his inscriptions.* The 
Babylonian king, whose text the copy reproduces, there 
bears the name Gaddash, evidently a contracted form 
of Gandash as written in the Kings’ I dst ; and the 
record contains an unmistakable reference to the Kassite 
conquest. Frorp what is left of the inscription it may 
be inferred that it commemorated the restoration of the 
temple of Bel, that is, of Marduk, which seems to have 
been damaged “ in the conquest of Babylon.” It is clear, 
therefore, that Babylon must have offered a strenuous 
opposition to the invaders, and that the city held out 
until captured by assault. It would seem, too, that 
this success was followed up by further conquests of 
Babylonian territory, for in his text, in addition to 
styling himself King of Babylon, Gaddash adopts the 
other time-honoured titles of King of the four quarters 
(of the world), and King of Sumer and Akkad. We 
may see evidence in this that the kingdom of the Sea- 

1 Cf. Ungnad, “ Vorderas. Srlmftdeiikimder/’ VII., pi. 27, No. 04. 

2 See above, p. 1115 f. 

8 Cf. Winckler, “ Unlersucliungeii,” p. 150, No. 0. 



UNDER THE KASSITES 217 

Country was now restricted within its original limits, 
though some attempts may have been made to stem 
the tide of invasion. Ea-gamil, at any rate, the last 
king of the Second Dynasty, was not content to defend 
his home-territory, for we know that he assumed the 
offensive and invaded Elam. But he appears to have 
met with no success, and after his death a Kassite 
chieftain, Ula-Burariash or Ulam-Buriash, conquered 
the Sea-Country and established his dominion there . 1 

The late chronicler, who records these events, tells 
us that Ulam-Buriash was the brother of Kashtiliash, 
the Kassite, whom we may probably identify with the 
third ruler of the Kassite Dynasty of Babylon. There 
Gandash, the founder of the dynasty, had been succeeded 
by his son Agum, but after the latter’s reign of twenty- 
two years Kashtiliash, a rival Kassite, had secured the 
throne . 2 He evidently came of a powerful Kassite tribe, 
for it was his brother, Ulam-Buriash. who conquered 
the Country of the Sea. We have recovered a memorial 
of the latter’s reign in*a knob or mace-head of diorite, 
which was found during the excavations at Babylon . 3 
On it he terms himself King of the Sea-Country, and 
we learn from it, too, that he and his brother were the 
sons of Burna-Burariash, or Burna-Buriash, who may 
have remained behind as a local Kassite chieftain in 
Elam, while his sons between them secured the control 
of Babylonia. After a certain interval, the Sea-Country 
must have revolted from Ulam-Buriash, for its recon- 
quest was undertaken by Agum, a younger son of 
Kashtiliash, who is recorded to have captured the city 
of Dur-Enlil and to have destroyed E-malga-uruna, 

1 Cf. u Chronicles,” II., p. 22 f. For discussions of the manner in which 
we may reconcile the chronicler’s account of the Kassite conquest of the Sea- 
Country with the known succession of the early Kassite kings of Babylon, see 
op. cit ., 1., pp. 101 ft*., anrl cf. Thureau-Dangin, ‘‘Journal des Savants,” 
Nouv. Ser., VI., No. 4, pp. 100 IF,, and 44 Zeits, fiir AsRyr.,” XXI., pp. 170 flf. 
The established genealogy of Agum-kakrime renders it impossible to 
identify the Agum of the chronicle, who was a son of Kashtiliash the 
Kassite, with either of the Kassite kings of Babylon who bore that name, 
lie can only have raided or ruled in the Sea-Country, probably at the time 
his eldest brother Ushshi (or perhaps his other brother, Abi-rattash) was king 
in Babylon. 

2 Agum-kakrimo describes Kashtiliash as apilu, probably “ the inheritor,” 
not mdru . “ the son,” of Agum 1. (cf. Thureau-Dangin, “ Journ. Asiat.,” XL, 
1908, p. 133 f.). 

3 See Weissbach, Cf Babylonische Miscellcn,” p. 7, pi 1, No. Jh 



218 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

the local temple of Enlil. 1 The eldest son of Kashtiliash 
had meanwhile succeeded his father on the throne of 
Babylon, and, if Agum established his rule in the Sea- 
Country, we again have the spectacle of two brothers, 
in the next generation of this Kassite family, dividing 
the control of Babylonia between them. But as the 
chronicler does not record that Agum, like his uncle 
Ulam-Buriash, exercised dominion over the Sea-Country 
as a whole, he may have secured little more than a local 
success. The throne of Babylon then passed to the 
second son of Kashtiliash, Abi-rattash, and it was possibly 
by him, or by one of his successors, that the whole 
country was once more united under Babylon’s rule. 

We know of two more members of the family of 
Kashtiliash, who carried on his line at Babylon. For 
Abi-rattash was succeeded by his son and grandson, 
Tashshi-gurumash and Agum-kakrime, of whom the 
latter has left us the record already referred to, com- 
memorating his recovery of the statues of Marduk and 
Sarpanitum from the land of Kfiani." And then there 
occurs a great break in our knowledge of the history of 
Babylon. For a period extending over some thirteen 
reigns, from about the middle of the seventeenth to the 
close of the fifteenth century n.c., our native evidence 
is confined to a couple of brief records, dating from the 
latter half of the interval, and to one or two historical 
references in later texts. By their help we have 
recovered the names of a few of the missing kings, 
though their relative order, and in one or two cases 
even their existence, are still matters of controversy. 
In fact, were we dependent solely upon Babylonian 
sources, our knowledge of the country’s history, even 
when we can again establish the succession, woidd have 
been practically a blank. But, thanks in great part to 
the commercial relations established with Syria since 
the age of the West-Semitic kings, .the influence of 
Babylonian culture had travelled far afield. Her method 
of writing on the convenient and imperishable clay 
tablet had been adopted by other nations of Western 

1 Cf. “ Chronicles,” II., p. 24. 

2 See above, x>. 210. From his titles we gather that he ruled Padan, 
Alman, Gutium and Ashnunnak as subject provinces ; cf. Jensen in Schrader’s 
“Keilins. RibiL,” III., i., p. 13(1 f. 



UNDER THE KASSITES 219 

Asia, and her language had become the lingua franca 
of the ancient world. After her conquest of Canaan, 
Egypt had become an Asiatic power, and had adopted 
the current method of international intercourse for 
communication with other great states and with her 
own provinces in Canaan. And thus it has come about 
that some of our most striking information on the 
period has come to us, not from Babylon itself, but 
from Egypt. 

The mounds known as Tell el-Amarna in Upper 
Egypt mark the site of a city which had a brief but 
brilliant existence under Amen-hetep IV., or Akhen- 
aten, one of the later kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty. 
He was the famous “ heretic ” king, who attempted to 
suppress the established religion of Egypt and to sub- 
stitute for it a pantheistic monotheism associated with 
the worship of the solar disk. In pursuance of his 
religious ideas he deserted Thebes, the ancient capital 
of the country, and built a new capital further to the 
north, which he called Akhetaten , 1 the modern Tell el- 
Amarna. Here he transferred the official records of 
his own government and those of his father, Amen- 
hetep III., including the despatches from Egypt’s 
Asiatic provinces and the diplomatic correspondence 
with kings of Mesopotamia, Assyria and Babylon. 
Some twenty-seven years ago a large number of these 
were discovered in the ruins of the royal palace, and 
they form one of the most valuable sources of informa- 
tion on the early relations of Egypt and W estern Asia . 2 
More recently they have been supplemented by a still 
larger lind of similar documents at Boghaz Keui in 
Cappadocia, a village built beside the site of Khatti, the 
ancient capital of the Hittite empire. The royal and 
official archives had been stored for safety on the 

1 That is, “The Glory of the Disk,*’ in honour of his new cult. For 
detailed histories of the period, see Budge, “ History of Egypt,” Vol. V., pp. 
‘.>0 If. ; Breasted, “History of Egypt,” pp. 322 ff., and Hall, “Ancient 
History of the Near East,’’ pp. 21)7 If. 

2 For the texts, see Budge and Bezold, “ The 'Fell el-Amarna Tablets in 
the British Museum” (1892), and Winckler, “I)er Thontafelfund von El 
Amarna*’ (1889-90); and for translations, see Winckler, “ Die Thontafeln 
von Tell el-Amarna” in Schrader’s “ Keilins. Bibl.,” Bd. V., Engl. ed. 189G, 
and Knudtzon’s “Die El-Amarna Tafeln ” in the “ Vorderasiatische 
Bibliothek,” 1907-12, with an appendix by Weber, annotating and discussing 
the contents of the letters. 



220 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

ancient citadel, and the few extracts that have as yet 
been published, from the many thousands of documents 
recovered on the site, have furnished further information 
of the greatest value from the Hittite standpoint . 1 2 

From these documents we have recovered a very 
full picture of international politics in Western Asia 
during two centuries, from the close of the fifteenth to 
the later years of the thirteenth century B.c. We can 
trace in some measure the dynastic relations established 
by Egypt with the other great Asiatic states, and the 
manner in which the balance of power was maintained, 
largely by diplomatic methods. During the earlier 
part of this period Egyptian power is dominant in 
Palestine and Syria, while the kingdom of Mitanni, under 
its Aryan dynasty, is a check upon Assyrian expansion. 
But Egypt was losing her hold upon her Asiatic 
provinces, and the rise of the Hittite empire coincided 
with her decline in power. Mitanni soon fell before the 
Hittitcs, to the material advantage of Assyria, which 
began to be a menace to her neighbours upon the west 
and south. After a change of dynasty, Egypt had mean- 
while in part recovered her lost territory in Palestine, 
and once more took her place among the great nations of 
W estern Asia. And it is only with the fall of the Hittite 
empire that the international situation is completely 
altered. Throughout Babylon stands, so far as she may, 
aloof, preoccupied with commerce rather than with 
conquest ; z but in the latter half of the period her eyes 
are always fixed upon her Assyrian frontier. 


1 Winckler’s preliminary account of the documents in the “ Mitteil. d. 
Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft,” No. 35, Dec. 1907, is still the only publication 
on the linguistic material that has appeared. The topographical and part of 
the archaeological results of the excavations have now been published ; see 
Puchstein, “ Bogliaskbi,” 1912. 

2 Among the royal letters from Tell el-Amarna are eleven which directly 
concern Babylon. Two of these are drafts, or copies, of letters which Amen- 
hetep III. despatched to Kadashman-Enlil of Babylon (of. Kundtzon, op. cit 
pp. (50 lb, 74 if.) ; three are letters received by AiLen-hetep 111. from the 
same correspondent (op. cit., pp. 00 ff., 08 ff. 9 72 if.) ; five are letters written by 
Burna-Buriash of Babylon to Amen-hetep IV. or Akheuaten (ojk cit., pp. 
78 IF.) ; and one is a letter from Burna-Buriash, which may have been 
addressed to Amen-hetep 111. {pp. cit., 78 f.). We also possess a letter, from a 
princess in Babylon to her lord in Egypt, on a purely domestic matter (op. cit., 
pp. 98 flf.), as well as long lists of presents which passed between Akhenaten 
and Burna-Buriash (op. cit., pp. 1()0 ft*.) ; one of the letters also appears to be 
a Babylonian passport for use in Canaan (see below, p. 225, n. 3). The letters 





UNDER THE KASSITES 221 

From the Tell el-Amarna correspondence we see how 
the kings of Mitanni, Assyria and Babylon gave their 
daughters to the Egyptian king in marriage and sought 
to secure his friendship and alliance. Apparently Egypt 
considered it beneath her dignity to bestow her prin- 
cesses in return, for in one of his letters to Amen-hetep 
III. Kadashman-Enlil remonstrates with the King of 
Egypt for refusing him one of his daughters and 
threatens to withhold his own daughter in retaliation . 1 
Another of the letters illustrates in a still more striking 
manner the intimate international intercourse of the 
period. At the height of its power the kingdom of 
Mitanni appears to have annexed the southern districts 
of Assyria, and for a time to have exercised control 
over Nineveh, as Hammurabi of Babylon had done in 
an earlier age. It was in his character of suzerain that 
Dushratta sent the holy statue of Ishtar of Nineveh to 
Egypt, as a mark of his esteem for Amen-hetep III. 
We have recovered the letter he sent with the goddess, 
in which he writes concerning her : 2 “ Indeed in the time 
of my father the lady Ishtar went into that land ; and, 
just as she dwelt there formerly and they honoured her, 
so now may my brother honour her ten times more than 
before. May my brother honour her and may he allow 
her to return with joy.” We thus gather that this was 
not the first time Ishtar had visited Egypt, and we may 
infer from such a custom the belief th’at a deity, when 
stopping in a foreign country with his or her own 
consent, would, if properly treated, confer favour and 


thus fall in the reigns of two Kassite rulers, Kadashman-Enlil I. and Burna- 
Buriash, hut from one of Burna-Buriash’s letters to Akheuaten we gather 
that Amen-hetep 111. had corresponded with a still earlier king in Babylon, 
Kara-indash I. ; for the letter begins by assuring the Pharaoh that “since the 
time of Kara-indash, when their fathers had begun to correspond with one 
another, they had always been good friends ” (cf. Knudtzon, op. tit., pp. 90 If.). 
We have recovered no letters of Kurigalzu, the father of Burna-Buriash, 
though Amen-hetep III maintained friendly relations with him (see below, 
p. 224). In a letter of Amen-hetep III. to Kadashman-Enlil reference is also 
made to correspondence between the two countries in the time of Amen-hetep 
III.’s father, Thothmes IV. (op. cit., p. 04 f. ). 

1 The Babylonian king expresses his willingness to receive any beautiful 
Egyptian woman, as no one would know she was not a king’s daughter (op. cit., 
p. 72 f.). Amen-hetep III. married a sister of Kadashman-Enlil, though the 
Babylonian court was not satisfied with the lady’s treatment in Egypt (op. cit. y 
p. 00 f.). 

2 Op. cit., pp. 178 ff. 



222 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

prosperity upon, that land. We shall see later on that 
Rameses II. sent his own god Khonsu on a similar 
mission to Kliatti, in order to cure the epileptic daughter 
of the Hittite king, who was believed to be possessed by 
a devil . 1 We could not have more striking proofs of 
international intercourse. Not only did the rulers of 
the great states exchange their daughters but even their 
gods. 

But the letters also exhibit the jealousy which 
existed between the rival states of Asia. By skilful 
diplomacy, and, particularly in the reign of Akhenaten, 
by presents and heavy bribes, the Egyptian king and 
his advisers succeeded in playing off’ one power against 
the other, and in retaining some hold upon their trouble- 
some provinces of Syria and Palestine. In paying liberal 
bounties and rewards to his own followers and party in 
Egypt itself, Akhenaten was only carrying out the tradi- 
tional policy of the Egyptian crown ; 2 and he extended 
the principle still more in his dealings with foreign states. 
But peculation on the part of the ambassadors was only 
equalled by the greed of the monarchs to whom they 
were accredited, and whose appetite for Egyptian gold 
grew with their consumption of it. Much space in the 
letters is given up to the constant request for more 
presents, and to complaints that promised gifts have not 
arrived. In one letter, for example, Ashur-uballit of 
Assyria writes to* Akhenaten that formerly the king of 
Khanirabbat had received a present of twenty manehs of 
gold from Egypt, and he proceeds to demand a like 
sum . 3 Burna-Buriash of Babylon, his contemporary, 
writes in the same strain to Egypt , 4 reminding Akhenaten 
that Amenophis III. had been far more generous to his 
father. “ Since the time my father and thine established 
friendly relations with one another, they sent rich 
presents to one another, and they did not refuse to one 
another any desired object. Now my* brother has sent 
me as a present two manehs of gold. Send now much 
gold, as much as thy father ; and if it is less, send but 
half that of thy father. Why hast thou sent only two 

1 See below, p. 240. 

2 Cf. Breasted, “ Hist, of E#ypt,” p. 007 f. 

5 See Knudtzon, op. cit ., p. 128 f. 4 Op. cit p. 88 f. 



UNDER THE KASSITES 223 



Pig. 46 . 

AKHENATEN, WITH HIS QUEEN AND INFANT DAUGHTERS, ON THE BALCONY 
OF THEIR TALACE. 


The king and his family are hero represented throwing down collars and 
ornaments of gold to Ay, the Priost of Aten and Master of tho Plorse, who has 
called at tho palaco with his wifo, attendod by a largo retinue. The Aten, or 
Solar Disk, the object of the royal worship, is caressing the king with its rays 
and giving him life. 

[Aftor N. de G. Pavios.] 

manehs of gold ? For the work in the temple is great, 
and 1 have undertaken it and am carrying it out with 




224 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

vigour ; therefore send mucJi gold. And do thou send 
for whatsoever thou desirest in my land, that they may 
take it thee.” 

Though a great part of the royal letters from Tell el- 
Amarna is taken up with such rather wearisome 
requests for gold, they also give valuable glimpses into 
the political movements of the time. We gather, for 
instance, that Egypt succeeds in preventing Babylon 
from giving support to the revolts in Canaan, but she 
does not hesitate to encourage Assyria, which is now 
beginning to display her power as Babylon’s rival. 
Burna-Buriash makes this clear when he complains that 
Akhenaten has received an embassy from the Assyrians, 
whom he boastfully refers to as his subjects ; and he 
contrasts Babylon’s own reception of Canaanite proposals 
of alliance against Egypt in the time of his father 
Kurigalzu. “ In the time of Kurigalzu, my father,” he 
writes, “the Canaanites sent to him with one accord, 
saying, ‘ Let us go down against the border of the land 
and invade if, and let us form an alliance with thee.’ 
But my father replied to them, saying, 1 Desist from 
seeking to form an alliance with me. If ye are hostile 
to the king of Egypt, my brother, and ally yourselves 
with one another, shall I not come and plunder you ? 
For with me is he allied.’ My father for thy father’s 
sake did not hearken to them.” 1 But Burna-Buriash 
does not trust entirely to the Egyptian’s sense of grati- 
tude for Babylon’s support in the past. He reinforces his 
argument by a present of three manehs of lapis-lazuli, 
five yoke of horses and five wooden chariots. Lapis- 
lazuli and horses were the two most valuable exports 
from Babylon during the Jvassite period, and they 
counterbalanced to some extent Egypt’s almost in- 
exhaustible supply of Nubian gold. 

Babylon at this time had no territorial ambitions 
outside the limit, of her own frontiers. She was never 
menaced by Mitanni, and it was only after the fall of 
the latter kingdom that she began to be uneasy at the 
increase of Assyrian power . 2 Apart from the defence 
of her frontier, her chief preoccupation was to keep the 
trade-routes open, especially the Euphrates route to 

1 Knudtzon, op. cit., pp. 88 if. 2 See below, p. 241. 



UNDER THE KASSITES 


225 


Syria and the north. Thus we find Burna-Buriash 
remonstrating with Egypt when the caravans of one 
of his messengers, named Salmu, had been plundered 
by two Canaanite chiefs, and demanding compensation . 1 
On another occasion he writes that Babylonian merchants 
had been robbed and slain at Khinnatuni in Canaan , 2 
and lie again holds Akhenaten responsible. “ Canaan 
is thy land,” he says, “ and its kings are thy servants ; ” 
and he demands that the losses should be made good 
and the murderers slain . 3 But Egypt was at this period 
so busy with her own affairs that she had not the time, 
nor even the power, to protect the commercial interests 
of her neighbours. For in the majority of the Tell el- 
Amarna letters we see her Asiatic empire falling to 
pieces . 4 From Northern Syria to Southern Palestine 
the Egyptian governors and vassal rulers vainly attempt 
to quell rebellion and to hold back invading tribes. 

The source of a good deal of the trouble was the great 
Hittite power, away to the north in the mountains of 
Anatolia. The Hittite kings had formed a confedera- 
tion of their own peoples north of the Taurus, and they 
were now pressing southwards into Phoenicia and the 
Lebanon. They coveted the fertile plains of Northern 
Syria, and Egypt was the power that blocked their path. 
They were not at first strong enough to challenge 
Egypt by direct invasion of her provinces, so they con- 
fined themselves to stirring up rebellion among the native 
princes of Canaan. These they encouraged to throw off 
the Egyptian yoke, and to attack those cities which 
refused to join them. The loyal chiefs and governors 

1 Cf. Knudtzon, op. cit ., p. 84 f. 

2 This was a ( ’anaanite city built by Akhenaten, and named by him Akhet- 
aten, in honour of the Solar Disk. 

3 Op. cit ., p. 8G f. An interesting little letter addressed “to the kings 
of Canaan, the servants of my brother,” w*as apparently a passport carried by 
Akia, an ambassador, whom the Babylonian king had sent to condole with 
the king of Egypt, probably on the death of his father Amen-hetep III. In 
it the king writes, “ let none detain him ; speedily may they cause him to 
arrive in Egypt ” (cf. op. cit., pp. 208 ff.). 

4 We are not here concerned with this aspect of the letters, as Babylon 
had but a remote interest in the internal politics of Canaan. Her activities in 
the west at this time were mainly commercial ; and the resulting influence of 
her civilization in Palestine is discussed in a later chapter (see below, pp. 289 ff.). 
The letters will be treated more fully in the third volume of this history, 
when tracing the gradual expansion of Assyria in the west, and the forces 
which delayed her inevitable conflict with Egypt. 

Q 



226 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

appealed for help to Egypt, and their letters show that 
they generally appealed in vain. For Akhenaten was 
a weak monarch, and was far more interested in his 
heretic worship of the Solar Disk than in retaining the 
foreign empire he had inherited. It was in his reign 
that the Anatolian Hittites began to take an active part 
in the politics of Western Asia. 

Until the discovery of the documents at Boghaz 
Keui. it had only been possible to deduce the existence 
of the Hittites from the mark they had left in the 
records of Egypt and Assyria ; and at that time it was 




FlG8. 47 AND 48. 


REPRESENTATIONS OF HITTITES IN EGYPTIAN SCULPTURE. 

The two Figures arts parts of the same scene from a relief found at Karnak, 
representing the introduction of Asiatic ambassadors by an Egyptian prince to 
Ramoses II. The bearded Semites are readily to be distinguished from their 
Hittite colleagues, clean-shaven and with their long plaits of hair, or pig-taila, 
hanging down the back. 

[After Meyer.] 

not even certain whether we might regard as their 
work the hieroglyphic rock-inscriptions, which are 
scattered over a great part of Asia Minor. But it is 
now possible to supplement our material from native 
sources, and to trace the gradual extension of their power 
by both conquest and diplomacy. They were a virile 
race, and their strongly marked features may be still 
seen, not only on their own rock-sculptures, but also in 
Egyptian reliefs beside those of other A siatics. 1 In facial 

1 See Figs. 47 and 48. The relief was found by M. Legrain at Karnak ; 
cf. Meyer, “ Reich und Kultur dor Chetiter, ,, pi. i. The inscription in Fig. 47 





UNDER THE KASSITES 227 

type, too, they are quite distinct, for the nose, though 
prominent and slightly curved, is not very fleshy, mouth 
and chin are small, and the forehead recedes abruptly, 
with the hair drawn back from it and falling in one, or 
possibly in two plaits, or pig-tails, on the shoulders . 1 It is 
still not certain to which of the great families of nations 
they belonged. The suggestion has been made that 
their language has certain Indo-European characteristics, 
but for the present it is safer to regard them as an 



Fig. 49. 

HTTTITE FOOT-BOLDI ERR AT THE BATTLE OF KADESII. 

Tho figure illustrates the facial type of the Hittite, with his prominent and 
slightly eurvod nose and strongly receding brow. 

£After Mcyor.] 


indigenous race of Asia Minor.* Their facial type in 
any case suggests comparison as little with Aryan as 
with Semitic stock. 

Their civilization was strongly influenced by that of 
Babylonia, pej-haps through the medium of Assyrian 
trading settlements, which were already established in 
Cappadocia in the second half of the third millennium. 
F rom these early Semitic immigrants, or their successors, 
they borrowed the clay tablet and the cuneiform system 

labels the ambassadors as “ mariana of Naharain (i.e. Northern Syria),” the 
term mariana being the Aryan word for “young men, warriors,” doubtless 
borrowed from the ruling dynasty of Mitanni (see below, n. 2). That in 
Fig. 48 contains the end of a list of Hittite cities, including [Carjchemish and 
Aruna, the latter probably in Asia Minor. 

1 See Figs. 41) and 50. 

2 The Mitannian people were probably akin to them, though in the 
fifteenth century they were dominated by a dynasty of Indo-European ex- 
traction, bearing Aryan names and worshipping the Aryan gods Mitra and 
Varuna, Iudra and the Nasatya- twins (cf. Winekler, “ Mitteil. d. Deutsch. 
Orient-Gesellschaft,” No. 35, p. 51, and Meyer, op. cit ., p. 57 f.). In spite of 
Scheftelowitz’s attempt to prove tho Mitannian speech Aryan (cf. “ Zeits. f. 
vergl. Sprachf.,” xxxviii., pp. 200 If.), it has been shown by Bloomfield to be 
totally non-Indo-European in character ; see “ Amor. Journ. of Philol.,” xxv., 
pp. 4 ff., and cf. Meyer, “ Zeits. f. vergl. Sprachf.,” xlii., 21, and King, 
“Journ. for Hellen. Stud.,” xxxiii., p. 359. 


228 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

of writing. But they continued to use their own picture- 
characters for monumental records ; and even in the later 
period, when they came into direct contact with the 
Assyrian empire, their art never lost its individual 
character. Some of the most elaborate of their rock- 
sculptures still survive in the holy sanctuary at Vasili 
Kaya, not far from Bogliaz Keui. Here on the rock- 
face, in a natural fissure of the mountain, are carved the 
figures of their deities, chief among them the great 
Mother-goddess of the Hittites. She and Teshub, the 



HITTITfe CHIEFTAIN, A CAPTIVE OF RAMKKEB III. 


A relief of the twelfth contury, perhaps the finest representation of a Hittifce 
on the Egyptian monuments ; it is evidently a portrait sculpturo, so far as the 
head is concerned. It illustrates, too, tho manner in which the heavy plait of 
hair endB in a curled tail. 

[After Meyer.] 

principal male deity, are here represented meeting, with 
their processions of deities and attendants. Whether it 
was from precisely this area that the Hittite tribes 
descended on their raid down the Euphrates, which 
hastened the fall of Babylon’s hirst Dynasty and 
perhaps brought it to an end, we have as yet no means 
of judging . 1 But during the subsequent centuries we 

1 Khatti may well have been an important centre from a very early period, 
and the use of the name “ Hittites” by the late chronicler, in describing the 
conflicts of the First Babylonian Dynasty, is in favour of this view ; see above, 

p. 210, ii. 2. 






UNDER THE KASSITES 229 

may certainly picture a slow but uninterrupted expan- 
sion of the area under Hittite control ; and it is probable 
that authority was divided among the various local 
kingdoms and chieftainships, which occupied the valleys 
and upland stretches to the north of the Taurus. 

At the time of their empire, their capital and central 
fortress was Khatti, which lay to the east of the Ilalys, 



Fig. 51. 


FIGURE, PROBABLY OF A HITTITE KING, FROM THE ROYAL GATE AT KHATTI. 

The poso of the figure, slightly leaning to the right, is due to the sloping side 
of the gateway, beside which it is sculptured in relief. 

[Aftor a photo by Puchstein.] 

on the Anatolian plateau some three thousand feet 
above sea-level. It occupied a strong position near the 
crossing of the great lines of traffic through Asia Minor ; 
and expansion from this area must have begun to take 
place at an early period beyond the west bank of the 
river, where the country offered greater facilities for 



230 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

pasturage. Another line of advance was southward to 
the coast-plains beneath the Taurus, and it is certain 
that Cilicia was occupied by Hittite tribes before any 
attempt was made on Northern Syria. That at first 
the Hittites were scattered, without any central organi- 
zation, among a number of independent city-states, may 
be inferred from their later records. For when a land 
is referred to in their official documents, it is designated 
“ the country of the city of so and so,” suggesting that 
each important township had been the centre of an 
independent district to which it gave its name. Some 
of the Hittite states attained in time to a considerable 
degree of importance. Thus we find Tarkundaraba of 
Arzawa sufficiently eminent to marry a daughter of 
Amen-hetep III. of Egypt . 1 Another city was Kussar, 
one of whose kings, Ivhattusil I., was the father of 
Shubbiluliuma, under whom the Hittites were organized 
into a strong confederacy which endured lor nearly two 
hundred years. It must have been owing to its strategic 
importance that Shubbiluliuma selected Khatti as his 
capital in place of his ancestral city. 

Quite apart from its name, and from the traditions 
attaching to it, there can be no question but that from 
this time forward Khatti was the centre of Hittite 
power and civilization ; for it is by far the most exten- 
sive Hittite site in existence. It covers the high 
ground, including the hill-top, above Boghaz Keui, 
which lies in the valley below ; and it is fortunate that 
the greater part of the modern village was built clear 
of the outer boundaries of the ancient city, as the ruins 
have in consequence run far less risk of destruction . 2 
It was placed high for purely strategic purposes, com- 
manding as it does the Royal Road from the west and 
the great trunk-road from the south as they approach 
the city- walls. The citadel was formed by a hat-topped 
hill , 3 which dominates the walled city to the north, 

1 This we gather from a letter Amen-hetep wrote to him in the Arzawa 
language, which was found at Tell el-Amarna ; cf. Knudtzon, “Die el- 
Amarna Tafeln/’ pp. 270 ff. y No. 31. 

2 A portion of the village is built over an extension of the outer fortifica- 
tion-walls on the north-west. 

a Now known as Beuyuk Kale. For an account of the excavations, see 
Puchstein, “ Boghaskm : die Bauwerke ” (1012); and for the best earlier 
description of the site, see Garstang, “ Land of the Hittites,” pp. 100 ff. 



UNDER THE KASSITES 231 

west, and south of it. Its precipitous slopes descend 
on the north-east side to a mountain stream outside 
the walls ; and a similar stream, fed by shallow gullies, 
flows north-westward through the city-area. From the 
point where they rise in the south, to their junction 
below the city, the ground falls no less than a thousand 
feet, and the uneven surface has been fully utilized for 
its defence. The wall which surrounded the southern 
and higher half of the city is still comparatively well 
preserved, and forms three sides of a rough hexagon, 



Fio. 52. 

THE ROYAL GATE OF KHATTI, THE CAPITAL OF THE IIITT1TKB, VIEWED FROM THE 

OUTSIDE. 

Tho massive walls aro preserved in their lower courses, but in the sketch the 
upper portions are restored in outline. The arohed gateway with its sloping sides 
is characteristic of Hittito work. 

[After Puchstein.] 

but the falling and broken ground to the north pre- 
vented a symmetrical completion of the circuit. A 
series of interior fortification- walls, following the slope 
of the ground, enclosed a number of irregular areas, 
subsidiary forts being constructed on four smaller hills 
along the most southerly cross-wall, which shut in the 
highest part of the city. 

The city’s greatest length from north to south was 
about a mile and a quarter, and its greatest width some 





232 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


three-quarters of a mile, the whole circuit of the exist- 
ing defences, including the lower-lying area, extending 
to some three and a half miles. This is a remarkable 
size for a mountain city, and although some portions of 
the area cannot have been occupied by buildings, the 
fortification of so extensive a site is an indication of the 
power of the Hittite empire and its capital. About 
fourteen feet in thickness, the wall is preserved in many 
places to a hight of more than twelve feet. It consists 
of an inner and an outer wall, filled in with a stone 
packing. 'The outer face was naturally the stronger of 



Fig. 53. 


CONJECTURAL RESTORATION OF A HITTITE GATEWAY VIEWED FROM INSIDE. 

It is possible that brick was employed for the upper structure of the city- 
wall and its towers, as suggested in the restoration. In such a case it is not 
unlikely that the stepped battlements of Mesopotamia were also adopted. 

[After Puehstein.] 

the two, and huge stones, sometimes five feet in length, 
have been employed in its construction. The wall was 
strengthened by towers, set at more or less regular 
intervals along it, their position being sometimes 
dictated by the contour of the ground. Round a 
great part of the circuit there are traces of an outer 
defensive wall of lighter construction and with smaller 
towers, but this was not continuous, being omitted 
wherever the natural fall of the ground was a sufficient 
protection to the main wall. 



UNDER THE KASSITES 233 

Projecting towers also flanked the main gateways, 
which exhibit a characteristic feature of Hittite archi- 
tecture. This is the peculiar form of the gateway, 
consisting of a pointed arch with gently sloping sides, 
the latter formed by huge monoliths bonded into the 
structure of the wall . 1 It would seem that brick was 
probably employed for the upper structure of both wall 
and towers ; and in other buildings of the city, such as 
the great temple to the north-west of the citadel, brick 
was used for the upper structure of the walls upon a 
stone foundation. Whenever the use of brick was 
adopted in one of the northern lands of Mesopotamia, 
where stone is plentiful, the latter was always used in 
the foundations. It is not improbable, therefore, that 
the stepped battlements of Assyria and Babylon were 
also borrowed, as that was the most convenient and 
decorative way of finishing off the upper courses of a 
fortification-wall built of that material. 

In the earlier years of Shubbiluliuma the city was 
doubtless very much smaller than it subsequently 
became. But he used it effectively as a base, and, as 
much by diplomatic means as by actual conquest, he 
succeeded in making the power of the Hittites felt 
beyond their own borders. The Syrian revolts in the 
reign of Amen-hetep III., by which the authority of 
Egypt was weakened in her Asiatic provinces, un- 
doubtedly received Hittite encouragement. Shubbilu- 
liuma also crossed the Euphrates and ravaged the 
northern territory of Mitanni, the principal rival of the 
Hittites up to that time. Later he invaded Syria in 


1 Iii the Lion-Gateway at Khatti the face of each monolith is carved to 
represent a lion, facing- any one approaching the entrance from without (cf. 
Puehstein, “ Boghaskoi,” pi. 2d f.). The figure sculptured in relief on the 
inner side of the Royal Gateway (see p. 220, Fig. 51) preserves an interesting 
feature of the best Hittite work, — an unusual combination of minute surface- 
adornment with great boldness of design. The hatching and scroll-work on 
the garment are only roughly indicated in the small drawing, and other 
detail is omitted. Hair on the breast of the figure, for example, doubtless 
regarded as a sign of strength and virility, is conventionally rendered by 
series of minute overlapping curls, which form a diapered pattern traced with 
the point. This can only be detected on the original stone, or in a large-size 
photograph, such as that reproduced by Puehstein, op. cit ., pi. 19. The Royal 
Gateway is in the S.H. corner of the city, near the palace and the smaller 
temnles. The great temple, by far the largest building on the site, lies on 
the lower ground to the north. 



234 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

force and returned to his mountain fastness of Khatti, 
laden with spoil and leading two Mitannian princes as 
captives in his train. On the accession of Akhenaten, 
Shubbiluliuma wrote him a letter of congratulation ; 
but, when the Syrian prince Aziru acknowledged the 
suzerainty of Egypt, Shubbiluliuma defeated him and 
laid the whole of Northern Syria under tribute, subse- 
quently confirming his possession of the country by 
treaty with Egypt. The state of Mitanni, too, sub- 
mitted to Shubbiluliuma’s dictation, for, on the murder 
of its powerful king Dushratta, he espoused the cause 



Fig. 54. 


LONGITUDINAL SECTION OF THE LOWER WESTERN GATEWAY AT KHATTI. 

The diagram, based on the conjectural restoration, indicates the massive 
construction of the gafco-houae, and the manner in which both it and the wall 
were adapted to the rising ground. The passage-way along the battlements must 
have passed- through the towors. 

[After Puchstein.] 

of Mattiuaza, whom he restored to his father’s throne 
after marrying him to his daughter. We have recovered 
the text of his treaty with Mitanni, and it reflects the 
despotic power of the Hittite king at this time. Refer- 
ring to himself in the third person he says, “ The great 
king, for the sake of his daughter, gave the country of 
Mitanni a new life.” 1 

It was not until the reign of Mursil, a younger son 
of Shubbiluliuma, that the Hittite empire came into 
armed conflict with Egypt. A change of dynasty in 

1 Cf. Wiuckler, “ Mitteil. d. Deutsch. Orient-Gesellschaft,” No. 35 , p. 30. 




UNDER THE KASSITES 


235 


the latter country, and the restoration of her old religion, 
had strengthened the government, and now led to 
renewed attempts on her part at recovering her lost 
territory. On the first occasion the Hittites were 
defeated by Seti I. in the north of Syria, and Egypt 
reoccupied Phoenicia and Canaan. Later on, probably 
in the reign of Mutallu, Mursil’s son, Rameses II. 
attempted to recover Northern Syria. At the battle of 
Kadesh, on the Orontes, he succeeded in defeating the 
Hittite army, though both sides lost heavily and at an 
early stage of the fight Rameses himself was in imminent 



Fig. 55. 

TRANSVERSE SECTION OF THE LOWER WESTERN GATEWAY AT RHATTI. 


The exterior projection of each flanking tower beyond the wall is indicated in 
the diagram. 

[After Puchstein.] 


danger of capture. Episodes in the battle may still be 
seen pictured in relief on the temple-walls at Luxor, 
Karnak and Abydos . 1 

The Egyptian war was continued with varying 
success, though it is certain that the Hittites were 


1 Hie disastrous opening of the battle was largely due to the over-confidence 
of Rameses and his complete miscalculation of the enemy’s strength and 
resources ; for the Egyptians had never yet met so powerful an enemy as the 
Hittites proved themselves to be. With the help of the reliefs it is possible 
to follow the tactics of the opposing armies in some detail. The accompany- 
ing inscriptions are very fragmentary, but they are supplemented by a 
historical account of the battle, introducing a poem in celebration of the 
valour of Rameses, preserved on a papyrus in the British Museum. For a 
detailed account of the battle, illustrated by plans ami accompanied by trans- 
lations of the texts, see Breasted, “Ancient Records of Egypt,” Vol. 111., 
pp. 123 If. ; cp. also Budge, “History,” Vol. V., pp. 20 ff., ami Hull, “Near 
East,” p 300 f. 




23G HISTORY OF BABYLON 

eventually successful in the north. But in the reign of 
Khattusil, the brother of Mutallu, both sides were 
weary of the conflict, and an elaborate treaty of peace 
and alliance was drawn up. This, when engraved upon 
a silver tablet, was carried to Egypt by an ambassador 
and presented to Rameses. The contents of the treaty 
have long been known from the Egyptian text, en- 
graved on the walls of the temple at Karnak ; and 
among the tablets found at Boghaz Keui was a broken 
copy of the original Hittite version , 1 drawn up in 
cuneiform characters and in Babylonian, the language 
of diplomacy at the period. Khattusil also maintained 
friendly relations with the Babylonian court, and he 
informed the king of Babylon of his treaty with the 
king of Egypt. It is clear from a copy of the letter, 
recovered at Boghaz Keui, that the Babylonian king 
had heard about the treaty and had written to enquire 
concerning it. Khattusil replies that the king of 
Egypt and he had formed a friendship and had concluded 
an alliance : “We are brothers, and against a foe will 
we fight together, and with a friend will we together 
maintain friendship .” 2 And his next remark enables 
us to identify his Kassite correspondent ; for he adds, 
“ and when the king of Egypt [formerly] attacked 
[Khatti], then did I write to inform thy father Ivadash- 
rnan-turgu.” Khattusil was thus the contemporary of 
two Kassite kings, Kadashman-turgu and Kadashman- 
Enlil II., the twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth rulers of 
the dynasty. 

Another section of this letter is of considerable 
interest, as it shows that an attempt by Khattusil to 
intervene in Babylonian politics had been resented, 
and had led to a temporary estrangement between the 
two countries. Khattusil is at pains to reassure 
Kadashman-Enlil as to the unselfishness of his motives, 
explaining that the action he had taken had been 
dictated entirely by the Kassite king’s own interests. 
The episode had occurred on the death of Kadashman- 
turgu, and, according to Khattusil’s account, he had at 
once written to Babylon to say that, unless the succes- 
sion of Kadashman-Enlil, who was then a boy, was 

1 Of. YVinckler, up. cit j>. 20 f. 2 Op. cAt., p. 23 f. 



UNDER THE KASSITES 


237 


recognized, he would break off the alliance he had 
concluded with the late king, Kadasman-Enlil’s father. 
The Babylonian chief minister, Itti-Marduk-balatu, had 
taken offence at the tone of the letter, and had replied 
that the Hittite king had not written in the tone of 
brotherhood, but had issued his commands as though 
the Babylonians were his vassals. As a result, diplo- 
matic negotiations had been broken off during the 
young king’s minority ; but he had now attained his 
majority, and had taken the direction of affairs from his 
minister’s hands into his own. The long communica- 
tion from Khattusil must have been written shortly 
after the resumption of diplomatic intercourse. 

After giving these explanations of his present 
relations with Egypt, and of his former discontinuance 
of negotiations with Babylon, Khattusil passes on to 
matters which doubtless had furnished the occasion 
for his letter. Certain Babylonian merchants, when 
journeying by caravan to Amurru and Ugarit, a town in 
Northern Phoenicia, had been murdered \ and, as the 
responsibility lay on the Hittite empire in its character 
of suzerain, Kudashman-Enlil had apparently addressed 
to Khattusil the demand that the guilty parties should 
be handed over to the relatives of the murdered men. 
The reference is of interest, as it gives further proof of 
Babylon’s commercial activities in the West, and shows 
how, after Egypt had lost her control of Northern 
Syria, the Kassite rulers addressed themselves to its 
new suzerain to secure protection for their caravans. 

W e have evidence that such diplomatic action was 
thoroughly effective, for not only had Babylon’s language 
and system of writing penetrated Western Asia, but her 
respect for law and her legislative methods had accom- 
panied them, at any rate within the Hittite area. The 
point is well illustrated by one of the last sections in 
this remarkable letter, which deals with a complaint by 
the Babylonian king concerning some action of the 
Amorite prince, Banti-shinni. The Amorite, when 
accused by Khattusil of having “ troubled the land ” 
of Kadashman-Enlil, had replied by advancing a 
counterclaim for thirty talents of silver against the 
inhabitants of Akkad. After stating this fact, Khattusil 



238 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

continues in his letter: “Now, since Banti-Shinni 
has become my vassal, let my brother prosecute the 
claim against him ; and, concerning the troubling of my 
brother’s land, he shall make his defence before the god 1 
in the presence of thy ambassador, Adad- shar-ilani. 
And if my brother wiil not conduct the action (him- 
self), then shall thy servant come who has heard that 
Banti-Shinni harassed my brother’s land, and he shall 
conduct the action. Then will I summon Banti-Shinni 



ONE OF THE TWO SACRED BOATS OF KHONBU, THE EGYPTIAN MOON-GOD, WHO 
JOURNEYED INTO CAPPADOCIA TO CAST OUT A DEVIL FROM A II1TTITK PRINCESS. 


A priest is offering incense before the shrine and sacred boat, which is 
being carried on the shoulders of other priests. In the accompanying inscription 
on the original stele, the god is referred to in his character as “Plan-Maker in 
Thebes ” and “ Smiter of Evil Spirits.” 

[After Rosellini.J 

to answer the charge. He is (my) vassal. If he 
harasses my brother, does he not then harass me ? ” 2 
It may be that Hittite diplomacy is here making use of 
the Babylonian respect for law, to find a way out of a 
difficult situation ; but the mere proposal of such a trial 
as that suggested proves that the usual method of 
settling international disputes of a minor character 

1 That is, under oath, according to the regular Babylonian practice. 

2 Winckler, op . cit. y p. 24. 




UNDER THE KASSITES 


239 


was modelled on Babylon’s internal legislative system. 
It is clear that the Hittite was anxious to prevent 
strained relations with Babylon, for he goes on to urge 
Kadashman-Enlil to attack a common enemy, whom he 
does not name. This must have been Assyria, whose 
growing power had become a menace to both states, and 
had caused them to draw together for mutual support. 

The account that has been given of this lengthy 
document will have indicated the character of the 
royal correspondence discovered at Boghaz Keui. In 



RAMESES II. OFFERING INCENSE TO ONE OF THE BOAT® OF KH0N6U BEFORE 
HE STARTED ON HI8 JOURNEY. 

The sacred boat of Khonau is hero being borne by a larger retinue of priests 
into tho presence of the king, who did not accompany the god on his journey. 

[After Iiosellini.] 

some respects it closely resembles that from Tell el- 
Amarna, but it exhibits a pleasing contrast by the 
complete absence of those whining petitions for gold 
and presents, which bulk so largely in the earlier docu- 
ments. The Egyptian policy of doles and bribery had 
brought out the worst side of the Oriental character. 
The Hittite did not believe in doles, and in any case he 
had not them to give ; as a consequence, his correspond- 
ence confines itself in great measure to matters of state 
and high policy, and exhibits far greater dignity and 
self-respect. And this applies equally, so far as we can 




240 JHBTORY OF BABYLON 

see, to the communications with Egypt, who had re- 
covered from her temporary decadence. There can be 
little doubt that the royal Hittite letters, when published, 
will enable us to follow the political movements of the 
period in even greater detail. 

One other act of Khattusil may be referred to, as it 
illustrates in the religious sphere the breaking down of 
international barriers which took place. A few years 
after the completion of his great treaty, Khattusil 
brought his daughter to Egypt, where she was married 
to Raineses with great pomp and circumstance. An 
intimate friendship continued to exist between the two 
royal families, and when Bentresh, his sister-in-law, fell 
ill in Ivhatti and was believed to be incurably possessed 
by a devil, Rameses hastened to send his physician to 
cure her . 1 But his efforts proving fruitless, the Pharaoh 
despatched the holy image of Khonsu, the Egyptian 
Moon -god, to Cappadocia, in order to cure her. The 
god duly arrived at the distant capital, and, while he 
wrought with the evil spirit, it is said that the Hittite 
king “stood' with his soldiers and feared very greatly .” 3 
But Khonsu was victorious, and the spirit having 
departed in peace to the place whence he came, there 
was great rejoicing. The episode forms an interesting 
parallel to Ishtar’s journey into Egypt in the reign of 
Amenhetep III. 

There is no • doubt that the son and grandson of 
Khattusil, Dudkhalia and Arnuanta, carried on their 
father’s policy of friendliness towards Babylon, who had 
no reason politically to resent the intrusion of Egyptian 


1 This is not the only occasion on which we hear of the despatch of 
physicians from one foreign country to another at this period. Naturally 
thoy were supplied by Egypt and Babylon, as the two great centres of science 
and learning. Thus Khattusil refers to a physician (a#A) and an exorcist 
(a&hipu), who had formerly been sent from Babylon to the Hittite king 
Mutallu but had not returned. Kadashman-Enlil had evidently written to 
enquire about them, and Khattusil replies that the exorcist is dead, but that 
the physician will be sent back; of. Winckler, op. cit ., p. 26. Medicine at 
this time was, of course, merely a branch of magic, and the nsu a practising 
magician ; sec above, p. 194. 

2 We possess no contemporary reference to Klionsu’s journey. The tale 
is recorded on a stele, now in the Bibliotheque Nationale, which was engraved 
and set up in the Persian or Hellenic period by the priests of Khonsu at 
Thebes (cf. Breasted, “ AncienPftecords,” III., pp. 188 IF.). At the head of 
the stele is a relief showing the two sacred boats of Khonsu borne on the 
shoulders of priests (see p. 238 f., Figs. 56 f.). 





UNDER THE KASSITES 241 

influence at Khatti . 1 But Arnuanta is the last king 
of Khatti whose name has been recovered, and it is 
certain that in the following century the invasion of 
Anatolia by the Phrygians and the Muski put an end 
to Hittite power in Cappadocia. The Hittites were 
pressed southward through the passes, and they con- 
tinued to wield a diminished political influence in 
Northern Syria. Meanwhile Assyria profited by their 
downfall and disappearance in the north. She had 
already expanded at the expense of Mitanni, and now 
that this second check upon her was removed, the 
balance of power ceased to be maintained in Western 
Asia. Babylon’s history from this time forward is in 
great part moulded by her relations with the northern 
kingdom. Even at the time of the later Hittite kings 
she failed to maintain her frontier from Assyrian en- 
croachment, and the capital itself was soon to fall. W e 
are able to follow the course of these events in some 
detail, as, with the reign of Ivara-indash I., the earliest 
of Amen-hetep III.’s correspondents , 2 3 our sources of in- 
formation are increased by the so-called “ Synchronistic 
History ” of Assyria and Babylonia,* which furnishes a 
series of brief notices concerning the relations maintained 
between the two countries. 

In the long period between Agum-kakrime 4 * and 
Kara-indash, the names of three Kassite rulers only have 
recovered. From a kudurru , 6 or legal document, of the 
reign of Kadashman-Enlil I. we learn of two earlier 
Kassite kings, Kadashman-Kharbe and his son Kuri- 
galzu,® and it is possible that a son of the latter, 

1 Evidence of increased Egyptian influence may be seen in the fact that, 
to judge from the seals upon a Hittite document (ct. Winckler, op, cAt. y 

E . 20), Arnuanta appears to have adopted the Egyptian custom of marrying 
is sister. 

2 See above, p. 221. 

3 Cf. “Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.,” Pt. XXXIV. (1914), pi. 38 ff., and 
Schrader, “Keilins. Bibl.,” I., pp. 194 ff. ; audcp. Budgeand King, “Annals 
of the Kings of Assyria,” pp. xxii. ff. 

4 See above, p. 218. 

6 See below, p. 245 f. 

• Kurigalzu I. is recorded to have made a grant of certain land, in the 
possession of which Kadashman-Enlil 1. confirmed a descendant of the former 
owner ; see King, “ Babylonian Boundary Stones and Memorial Tablets in 
the British Museum,” p. 3 f. The document is of considerable importance, as 
the reading of Kadashman-Enlil’s name upon it has cleared up several points 
of uncertainty connected with the vexed subject of the Kassite succession. 

R 



342 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

Meli-Shipak, succeeded his father on the throne. We 
know nothing of Babylon’s relations to Assyria at this 
time, and our first glimpse of their long struggle for 
supremacy is in the reign of Kara-indash, who is recorded 
t,o have made a friendly agreement with Ashur-rim- 
nisheshu with regard to their common boundary . 2 That 
such an agreement should have been drawn up is in 
itself evidence of friction, and it is not surprising that a 
generation or so later Burna-Buriash, the correspondent 
of Amen-hetep TIL, should have found it necessary to 
conclude a similar treaty with Puzur- Ashur, the contem- 
porary Assyrian king . 3 We may regard these agreements 
as marking the beginning of the first phase in Babylon’s 
subsequent dealings with Assyria, which closes with 
friendly agreements of a like character at the time of the 
Fourth Babylonian dynasty. During the intervening 
period of some three centuries friendly relations 
were constantly interrupted by armed conflicts, which 
generally resulted in a rectification of the frontier to 
Babylon’s disadvantage. On only one occasion was she 
victorious in battle, and twice during the period the 
capital itself was taken. But Assyria was not yet 
strong enough to dominate the southern kingdom for 
any length of time, and at the close of the period 
Babylon may still be regarded as in occupation of a 
great part of her former territory, but with sorely 
diminished prestige. 

To appreciate the motives which impelled Assyria 
from time to time to intervene in Babylonian politics, 
and to attempt spasmodically a southward expansion, it 
would be necessary to trace out her own history, and 
note the manner in which her ambition in other quarters 
reacted upon her policy in the south. As that would 
be out of place in the present volume, it will suffice 

1 A red marble mace-head, discovered at Babylon (cf. Weissbach, “Bab. 
Miscellen/’ pp. 2 ff.), is inscribed with his name and that of his father. 
Neither bears a royal title in the text, but, as this is sometimes omitted in the 
Kassite period, Meli-Shipak may be provisionally regarded as the successor of 
Kurigalzu I. ; cf. Thureau-Daugin, “ Journ. Asiat./’ XI. (1908), p. 119 f. 

2 Cf. " Annals/’ p. xxii. 

8 Op. tit., p. xxiii. In the interval between Kara-indash I. and Burna- 
Buriash are to be set Kadashinan-Enlil I. and his son, [. . . .-Bu]riash (see 
Hilprecht, “Old Bab. Inscr.," I., i., pi. 25, No. 68, and cp. Thureau-Dangin, 
op. cit., pp. 122 ff.), as well as Kurgalzu II. the father of Burna-Buriash (see 
above, pp. 221, 224). 



UNDER THE KASSITES 243 

here to summarize events so far as Babylon was affected. 
The friendly attitude of Puzur-Ashur to Burna-Buriash 
was maintained by the more powerful Assyrian king 
Ashur-uballit, who cemented an alliance between the 
two countries by giving Burna-Buriash his daughter 
Muballitat-Sherua in marriage. On the death of Burna- 
Buriash, his son Kara-indash 1 1., who was Ashur-uballit’s 
grandson, ascended the throne, and it was probably due 
to his Assyrian sympathies that the Kassite party in 
Babylon revolted, slew him and set Nazi-bugash in his 
place. Ashur-uballit invaded Babylonia, and having 
taken vengeance on Nazi-bugash, put Kurigalzu 111., 
another son of Burna-Buriash, upon the throne. 1 But 
the young Kurigalzu did not fulfil the expectations of 
his Assyrian relatives, for after Ashur-uballit’s death he 
took the initiative against Assyria, 2 and was defeated at 
Sugagi on the Zabzallat by Enlil-nirari, to whom he was 
obliged to cede territory. A further extension of 
Assyrian territory was secured by Adad-nirari I., when 
he defeated Kurigalzu ’s son and successor, Nazi-marut- 
tash, at Kar-Ishtar in the frontier district of Akarsallu. 3 

We have already seen from the Boghaz Keui cor- 
respondence how the Hittite Empire and Babylon were 
drawn together at this time by dread of their common 
foe, doubtless in consequence of the aggressive policy 
of Shalmaneser I. We do not know whether Kadash- 
man-Enlil II. followed the promptings of Khattusil, 
and it is not until the reign of Kashtiliash II. 4 that we 
have record of fresh conflicts. Then it was that Babylon 
suffered her first serious disaster at Assyrian hands. Up 
to this time we have seen that two Assyrian kings had 

1 Cf. “ Annals," p. xxvii. The account given by the Synchronistic 
History is certainly to be preferred ■ to that of the Chronicle 82-7-4, 38. 
The discrepancies are best explained on the assumption that the latter’s 
editor has confused Kurigalzu, the young son of Burna-Buriash, with Kuri- 
galzu 1., the eon of Kadas-hinan-Kharbe I., to whom the chronicler’s ascription 
of success against the Sutft should be transferred (see Tlmreau-Dangin, 
“Journ. Asiat./’ XI., 11)08, pp. 125 ff.,aml cp. Knudtzon, “ Die El-Amarna- 
Tafeln,” p. 34, n. 2). 

2 He was no doubt elated by his successful war with Klam, in the course of 
which he captured Khurpatila, the Elamite king ; cf. Delitzsch, “ Das Bab. 
Citron./* p. 45. 

3 “Annals,” pp. xxviii., xxxii. 

4 The successor of his father and grandfather, Shagarakti-Shuriash and 
Kudur-Enlil upon the Babylonian throne. 



244 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


defeated Babylonian armies, and had exacted cessions of 
territory as the result of their victories. Tukulti-Ninib 
I. was only following in their steps when he in turn 
defeated Kashtiliash. But his achievement differed 
from theirs in degree, for he succeeded in capturing 
Babylon itself, deported the Babylonian king, and, 
instead of merely acquiring a fresh strip of territory, he 
subdued Karduniash 1 and administered it as a province 
of his kingdom till his death . 2 The revolts which closed 
Tukulti-Ninib’s reign and life 3 were soon followed by 
Babylon’s only successful campaign against Assyria. 

Adad-shum-usur, who owed his throne to a revolt of 
the Kassite nobles against the Assyrian domination, 
restored the fortunes of his country for a time. He 
defeated and slew Enlil-kudur-usur in battle, and, when 
the Assyrians retreated, he followed them up and 
fought a battle before Ashur. This successful reasser- 
tion of Babylon’s initiative was maintained by his direct 
descendants Meli-Shipak II. and Marduk-aplu-iddina, or 
Merodach-haladan I. ; and the kudurru-records of their 
reigns, which have been recovered, have thrown an 
interesting light on the internal conditions of the 
country during the later Kassite period. But Assyria 
once again asserted herself under Ashur-dan I., who 
defeated Zamama-shum-iddin and succeeded in recover- 
ing her lost frontier provinces . 4 The Kassite dynasty 
did not long survive this defeat, although it received its 
death-blow from another quarter. Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, 
the Elamite king, invaded Babylonia, defeated and 
slew Zamama-shum-iddin, and, aided by son Kutir- 
Nakhkhunte, he sacked Sippar and carried away much 


1 The unification of Babylonia under the Kassites was symbolized by the 
name Karduniash, which they bestowed on the country as a whole. But the 
older territorial divisions of Sumer and Akkad still survived as geographical 
terms and in the royal titles. 

2 Cf. King, “ Kecords of Tukulti-Ninib I.,” pp« 96 if. 

3 The short reigns of Enlil-nadin-shum, Kadashman-Khabe II. and Adad- 
shum-iddin must be regarded as hilling partly within the period of Tukulti- 
Ninib’s troubled years of suzerainty, partly in the reign of Tukulti-Ashur, 
when the statue of Marduk, carried off by Tukulti-Ninib, was restored to 
Babylon. The reign of Enlil-nadin-shum was cut short by Kidin-Khutrutash 
of Elam, who sacked Nippur and Der, while a few years later the same 
Elamite monarch penetrated still further into Babylonia after defeating Adad- 
shum-iddin ; cf. Delitzsch, 44 Das Bah. Chron.,” p. 40. 

4 “Annals,” p. xli 



UNDER THE KASSITES 245 

spoil to Elam. The name of the last Kassite ruler, who 
reigned for only three years, is broken in the Kings’ 
List, but it is possible that we may restore it as Bel- 
nadin-akhi, 1 whom Nebuchadnezzar I. mentions after 
referring to the invasion which cost Zamama-shum-iddin 
his life. Whether we accept the identification or not, 
we may certainly connect the fall of the Kassite Dynasty 
with aggression on the part of Elam, such as so often 
before had changed the course of Babylonian politics. 

Apart from the tablets of the Kassite period dis- 
covered at Nippur, 2 our principal source of information 
on economic conditions in Babylonia at i his time is to 
be found in the kudurru-inscriptions, or boundary- 
stones, to which reference has already been made. 3 
The word kiulurru may be rendered accurately enough 
as “boundary-stone,” for the texts are engraved on 
conical blocks or boulders of stone ; and there is little 
doubt that many of the earlier stones must have been 
set up on landed estates, whose limits and ownership 
they were intended to define and commemorate. Even 
at a time when the stone itself had ceased to be em- 
ployed to mark the boundary and was preserved in the 
owner’s house, or in the temple of his god, as a charter 
or title-deed to which he could appeal in case of need, 
the text preserved its old formula; setting out the limits 

and orientation of the plot of land to which it referred. 

* 

1 'Hie name in the Kings’ List reads Bvl-nadin-[. . . .] ; and in the frag- 
mentary inscription in which Nebuchadnezzar records how he turned the tables 
upon Elam, he refers to a ruler, between [Zamamaj-shum-iddin and himself, as 
( ilu) BE-nad i n - a kh i (see Rawlinson, “Cun. lnscr. West Asia,” J1I., pi. 38, 
No. 2, and cf. Winckler, “ Altorientalische Forsch ungen,” I., pp. 534 if.). 
The divine ideogram (il u)be was read as Ea by the Babylonians and as Enlil 
by the Assyrians. And the identification of the two royal names has been 
called in question on the grounds that the Assyrian copy, in which Nebuchad- 
nezzar’s text has come down to un, would have reproduced the Babylonian 
orthography of its original, and that in any case it is doubtful whether Enlil, 
like Marduk, ever bore the synonymous title of Bel (cf. Thureau-Dangin, 
“ Journ. Asiat.,” XI., p. 132 f.). If we reject the identification, we should 
read the name of the las^ king of the Kassite Dynasty as Ea-nadin-[. . . .], 
and regard Bel-nadin-akhi as probably the second or third ruler of the Fourth 
Dynasty. 

2 The contracts and letters of this period closely resemble those of the 
time of the First Dynasty. The dated documents have furnished a means of 
controlling the figures assigned in the Kings’ List to the later Kassite rulers ; 
see Clay, '‘Documents from the Temple Archives of Nippur,” in the “ Bab. 
Exped. Series, Vol. XJV. f., and for a number of contemporary letters, seo 
Kadau, ibid Vol. XVII., i. 

3 See above, pp. 241, 244. 



246 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

The importance of these records is considerable, not 
only in their legal and religious aspects, but also from a 
historical point of view. Apart from the references to 
Babylonian kings and to historical events, which they 
contain, they form in many cases the only documents 
of their period which have come down to us. They 
thus serve to bridge the gap in our knowledge of 
Euphritean civilization between the Kassite epoch and 
that of the Neo-Babylonian kings ; and, while they 
illustrate the development which gradually took place 
in Babylonian law and custom, they prove the con- 
tinuity of culture during times of great political 
change . 1 

The kudurru or boundary-stone had its origin under 
the Kassite kings, and, while at first recording, or con- 
firming, a royal grant of land to an important official or 
servant of the king, its aim was undoubtedly to place 
the newly acquired rights of the owner* under the pro- 
tection of the gods. A series of curses, regularly 
appended to the legal record, was directed against any 
interference with the owner’s rights, which were also 
placed under the protection of a number of deities whose 
symbols were engraved upon the blank spaces of the 
stone. It has been suggested that the idea of placing 
property under divine protection was not entirely an 
innovation of the Kassites. It is true that the founda- 
tion-cones of the early Sumerian patesi Entemena may 
well have ended with elaborate curses intended to pre- 
serve a frontier-ditch from violation . 2 But the cones 
themselves, and the stele from which they were copied, 
were intended to protect a national frontier, not the 
boundaries of private property. Gate-sockets, too, have 
been treated as closely related to boundary-stones, on 
the ground that the threshold of a temple might be re- 
garded as its boundary . 3 But the main object of the 
gate-socket was to support the temple-gate, and its 
prominent position and the durable nature of its material 

1 For the kudurru-inscriptions in the British Museum, see “ Babylonian 
Boundary-Stones and Memorial Tablets in the Brit. Mus. M (1912); and for 
references to and discussions of other texts, cf. Hincke, “ A New Boundary- 
Stone of Nebuchadnezzar 1.” (1907), pp. xvi. ff., 16 ff. 

2 Cf. “ Sumer and Akkad,” p. 165. 

8 See Hincke, op. cit., p. 4. 



UNDER THE KASSITES 247 

no doubt suggested its employment as a suitable place 
for a commemorative inscription. The peculiarity of 
the boundary-stone is that, by both curse and sculptured 
emblem, it invokes divine protection upon private 
property and the rights of private individuals. 

In the age of Hammurabi we have no evidence of 
such a practice, and the Obelisk of Manishtusu , 1 the far 
earlier Semitic king of Akkad, which records his ex- 
tensive purchases of land in Northern Babylonia, is 
without the protection of imprecatory clauses or symbols 
of the gods. The suggestion is thus extremely probable 
that the custom of protecting private property in this 
way arose at a time when the authority of the law was 
not sufficiently powerful to guarantee respect for the 
property of private individuals . 2 This would specially 
apply to grants of land to favoured officials settled 
among a hostile population, especially if no adequate 
payment for tlr« property had been made by the Kassite 
king. The disorder and confusion which followed the 
fall of the First Dynasty must have been renewed during 
the Kassite conquest of the country, and the absence of 
any tceling of public security would account for the 
general adoption of such a practice as placing land in 
private possession under the protection of the gods. 

The use of stone stela? for this purpose may well 
have been suggested by a Kassite custom ; for in the 
mountains of Western Persia, the recent home of the 
Kassite tribes before their conquest of the river-plain, 
stones had probably been used to mark the limits of 
their fields, and these may well have borne short inscrip- 
tions giving the owner’s name and title . 3 The employ- 
ment of curses to secure divine protection was un- 
doubtedly of Babylonian, and ultimately of Sumerian 
origin, but the idea of placing symbols of the gods 

1 Cf. “Sumer and Akkad,” pp. 206 ff. 

2 Cf. Cuq, “ Nouvelle Revue Historique, ” 1007, p. 707 f., 1008, p. 476 f. 

3 Resemblances have been pointed out between the boundary-records of 
ancient Kgypt and those of Babylonia ; but of course no inference of borrow- 
ing need be inferred from them. The method of marking out the limits of 
a field or estate by means of boundary-stones, or boundary-tablets, is common 
among peoples who have abandoned nomad life for agriculture ; and the 
further idea of inscribing the owner’s name and title to the land is one that 
would naturally suggest itself. 



m ■' ifflSTORY OF BABYLON 

upon the stone wits probably Kassite . 1 Moreover, the 
kudurru was not the original title-deed recording the 
acquisition of the land to which it refers. As in 
the earlier Babylonian periods, clay tablets continued to 
be employed for this purpose, and they received the 
impression of the royal seal as evidence of the king’s 
sanction and authority. The text of the tablet, generally 
with the list of witnesses, was later on recopied by the 
engraver upon the stone, and the curses and symbols 
were added . 2 

A boundary-stone was sometimes employed to com- 
memorate a confirmation of title, and, like many modern 
legal documents, it recited the previous history of the 
property during a long period extending over several 
reigns. But the majority of the stones recovered com- 
memorate original grants of land made by the king to 
a relative, or to one of his adherents in return for some 
special service. Perhaps the finest of thisidass of charters 
is that in which Meli-Shipak makes a grant of certain 
property in Bit-Pir-Shadu-rabu, near the old city of 
Akkad or Agade and the Kassite town Dur-Kurigalzu, 
to his son Merodach-baladan I., who afterwards suc- 
ceeded him upon the throne . 3 * * * * 8 After giving the size 
and situation of the estates, and the names of the high 
officials who had been entrusted with the duty of draw- 
ing up the survey, the text defines the privileges granted 
to Merodach-baladan along with the land. As some of 
these throw considerable light on the system of land 
tenure during the Kassite period, they may be briefly 
summarized. 

The king, in conferring the ownership of the land 
upon his son, freed it from all taxes and tithes, and for- 
bade thedisplacement of its ditches, limits, and boundaries. 


1 This is suggested by the fact that the symbols and curses so often do not 
correspond ; had they both been bound up in a like origin, we should 
have expected the one to illustrate the other more closely. 

2 It was quite optional on the part of a Kassite landowner to engrave 

a boundary-stone, and, if he did so, it was simply to secure additional pro- 

tection for his title. This is well illustrated by a kudurru of the reign of 

Nazi -mar uttash (see Plate XXI.), which was only engraved after the original 

clay title-deed had been destroyed by the fall of the building in which it had 

been-preserved. 

8 See Plate XXI., opposite ; and cp. Scheil, “Textes tfllam.-Semit.,” I. 9 
pp. 99 ff., pi. 21 ff. 








UNDER THE KASSITES 049 

He freed' it also from the cqrvSe, and enacted that none 
of the people of the estate were to be requisitioned 
among the gangs levied in its district for public works, 
for the prevention of flood, or for the repair of the royal 
canal, a section of which was maintained in working 
order by the neighbouring villages of Bit-Sikkamidu 
and Damik-Adad. They were not liable to forced 
labour on the canal-sluices, nor for building dams, nor 
for digging out the canal -bed. No cultivator on the 
property, whether hired or belonging to the estate, was 
to be requisitioned by the local governor even under 
royal authority. No levy was to be made on wood, 
grass, straw, corn, or any sort of crop, on the carts and 
yokes, on asses or man-servants. No one was to use 
his son’s irrigation-ditch, and no levy was to be made on 
his water-supply even during times of drought. No one 
was to mow his grass-land without his permission, and 
no beasts belonging to the king or governor, which 
might be assigned to the district, were to be driven over 
or pastured on the estate. And, finally, he was freed 
from all liability to build a road or a bridge for the 
public convenience, even though the king or the 
governor should give the order. 

From these regulations it will be seen that the owner 
of land in Babylonia under the later Kassite kings, unless 
granted special exemption, was liable to furnish forced 
labour for public works both to the state and to his local 
district ; he had to supply grazing and pasture for the 
flocks and herds of the king and the governor, and to 
pay various taxes and tithes on land, irrigation- water, 
and crops. We have already noted the prevalence of 
similar customs under the First Dynasty , 1 and it is clear 
that the successive conquests to which 'the country had 
been subjected, and its domination by a foreign race, 
had not to any appreciable extent affected the life and 
customs of the people nor even the general character of 
the administrative system. 

On one subject the boundary-stones throw addi- 
tional light, which is lacking at the period of the First 
Dynasty, and that is the old Babylonian system of land 
tenure. They suggest that the lands, which formed 

1 See above, pp. 1 07 ff. 



250 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

the subject of royal grants during the Kassite period, 
were generally the property of the local bitu, or tribe . 1 In 
certain cases the king actually purchased the land from 
the bitu in whose district it was situated, and, when no 
consideration was given, we need merely assume that it 
was requisitioned by royal authority. The primitive 
system of tribal or collective proprietorship, which is 
attested by the Obelisk of Manishtusu , 2 undoubtedly 
survived into the Kassite period, when it co-existed with 
the system of private ownership, as it had doubtless done 
at the time of the West- Semi tic kings. The bitu must 
often have occupied an extensive area, split up into 
separate districts or groups of villages. It had its own 
head, the bcl biti,, and its own body of local functionaries, 
who were quite distinct from the official and military 
servants of the state. In fact, agricultural life in 
Babylonia during the earlier periods must have presented 
many points of analogy to such examples of collective 
proprietorship as may be seen in the village communities 
of India at the present day. As the latter system has 
survived the political changes and revolutions of many 
centuries, so it is probable that the tribal proprietorship 
in Babylonia was slow to decay. 

The principal factor in its disintegration was un- 
doubtedly the policy, pursued by the West-Semitie and 
Kassite conquerors, of settling their own officers and 
more powerful adherents on estates throughout the 
country. Both these periods thus represent a time of 
transition, during which the older system of land tenure 
gradually gave way in face of the policy of private owner- 
ship, which for purely political reasons was so strongly 
encouraged by the crown. There can be no doubt that 
under the West^Semitic kings, at any rate from the 
time of Hammurabi onwards, the policy of confiscation 
was rarely resorted to. And even the earlier rulers of 
that dynasty, since they were of the $ame racial stock 
as a large proportion of their new subjects, would have 

1 Cf. Cuq, “Nouv. Rev. Hist.,*’ 190(5, pp. 720 ff., 1908, p. 474 f. This 
view appears preferable to the theory that the land granted by the Kassite 
kings was taken from communal or public land of a city, or district, of which 
the king had the right to dispose (cf. Hincke, “ Boundary Stone of 
Nebuchadnezzar I.,” p. 1(5). 

2 See above, p. 247. 



UNDER THE KASSITES 251 

been the more inclined to respect tribal institutions 
which may have found a parallel in their land of origin. 
The Kassites, on the other hand, had no such racial 
associations to restrain them, and it is significant that 
the kudurrus were now for the first time introduced, 
with their threatening emblems of divinity and their 
imprecatory clauses. At first employed to guard the 
rights of private ownership, often based on high-handed 
requisition by the king, they were afterwards retained 
for transfers of landed property by purchase. In the 
Neo-Babylonian period, when the boundary-stones re- 
corded long series of purchases by means of which the 
larger landed estates were built up, the imprecations and 
symbols had become to a great exteiit conventional 
survivals. 

But that period was still far distant, and the 
vicissitudes the country was to pass through were not 
conducive to security of tenure, whether the property 
were held under private or collective ownership. We 
have seen that Assyria, as early as the thirteenth century, 
had succeeded in capturing and sacking Babylon, and, 
according to one tradition, had ruled the city for seven 
years. She was shortly to renew her attempts to sub- 
jugate the southern kingdom ; but it was Elam, 
Babylon’s still older foe, that brought the long and 
undistinguished Kassite Dynasty to an end. 



CHAPTER VIII 


THE EATER DYNASTIES AND THE ASSYRIAN 
DOMINATION 

T HE historian ol‘ ancient Babylonia has reason to 
be grateful to Shutruk-Nakhkhuntc and his son 
for their raids into the Euphrates valley, since 
certain of the monuments they carried off as spoil have 
been preserved in the mounds of Susa, until the French 
expedition brought them again to light. Thanks to 
Babylon’s misfortunes at this time, we have recovered 
some of her finest memorials, including the famous Stele 
of Naram-Sin^ Hammurabi’s Code of Laws, and an im- 
portant series of the Kassite kudurrus, or boundary - 
stones, which, as we have seen, throw considerable light 
upon the economic condition of the country. These 
doubtless represent but a small proportion of the booty 
secured by Elam at this period, but they suffice to show 
the manner in which the great Babylonian cities were 
denuded of their treasures. Under the earlier kings of 
the Fourth Dynasty it would seem that Elam continued 
to be a menace, and it was not until the reign of 
Nebuchadnezzar I. that the land was freed from further 
danger of Elamite invasion. W e possess two interest- 
ing memorials of his successful campaigns, during which 
he not only regained his own territories, but carried the 
war into the enemy’s country. One is a charter of 
privileges, which the king conferred upon Ritti-Marduk, 
the Captain of his chariots, for signal service against 
Elam. The text is engraved on a block of calcareous 
limestone, and on one side of it are a series of divine 
symbols, sculptured in high relief, in order to place the 
record under the protection of the gods, in accordance 
with the custom introduced during the Kassite period. 
The campaign in Elam which furnished the occasion 



RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA 253 

for the charter was undertaken, according to the text , 1 
with the object of “ avenging Akkad,” that is to say, in 
retaliation for the Elamite raids in Northern Babylonia. 
The campaign was conducted from the frontier city of 
Dor, or IJur-ilu, and, as it was carried out in the summer, 
the Babylonian army suffered considerably on the march. 
The heat of the sun was so great that, in the words of 
the record, the axe burned like fire, the roads seorehed 
like flame, and through the lack of drinking-water “ the 
vigour of the great horses failed, and the legs of the 
strong man turned aside.” Ritti-Marduk, as Captain of 
the chariots, encouraged the troops by his example, and 
eventually brought them to the Eukeus, where they 
gave battle to the Elamite confederation which had been 
summoned to oppose them. 

The record describes the subsccjuent battle in vivid 
ph raseology. “ The kings took their stand round about 
and offered battle. Fire was kindled in their midst ; 
by their dust was the face of the sun darkened. The 
hurricane sweeps along, the storm rages ; ,in the storm 
of their battle the warrior in the chariot perceives not 
the companion at his side.” Here again Ritti-Marduk 
did good service by leading the attack. “ He turned 
evil against the King of Elam, so that destruction over- 
took him ; King Nebuchadnezzar triumphed, he captured 
the land of Elam, he plundered its possessions.” On 
his return from the campaign Nebuchadnezzar granted 
the charter to Ritti-Marduk, freeing the towns and 
villages of Bit-Ivarziabku, of which he was the head- 
man, from the jurisdiction of the neighbouring town of 
Namar. In addition to freedom from all taxation and 
the corvee , the privileges secured the .inhabitants from 
liability to arrest by imperial soldiers stationed in the 
district, and forbade the billeting of such troops upon 
them. This portion of the text affords an interesting 
glimpse of the military organization of the kingdom. 

The second memorial too has a bearing on this war, 
since it exhibits Nebuchadnezzar as a patron of Elamite 
refugees. It is a copy of a deed recording a grant of 
land and privileges to Shamua and his son Shamaia, 
priests of the Elamite god Ria, who, in fear of the 

1 Cf. “ Boundary- Stones in the Brit. Mus./’ pp. 29 ff. 



254 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

Elamite king, fled from their own country and secured 
Nebuchadnezzar’s protection. The text states that, 
when the king undertook an expedition on their behalf, 
they accompanied him and brought back the statue of 
the god Ria, whose cult Nebuchadnezzar inaugurated 
in the Babylonian city of Khussi, after he had introduced 
the foreign god into Babylon at the Feast of the New 
Year. The deed records the grant of five estates to 
the two Elamite priests and their god, and it exempts 
the land in future from all liability to taxation and 
forced labour. 1 

Though Nebuchadnezzar restored the fortunes of 
his country, h,e was not the founder of his dynasty. 2 
Of his three predecessors, the name of one may now 
be restored as Marduk-shapik-zerirn. His name has 
been read on a kudurru-fragment in the Y ale Collection, 
which is dated in the eighth year of Marduk-nadin- 
akhe, and refers to the twelfth year of Marduk-shapik- 
zerim. 3 That he cannot be identified with Marduk- 
shapik-zer-m£iti is certain, since we know from the 
“ Synchronistic History ” that the latter succeeded 
Marduk-nadin-akhe upon the throne of Babylon, the 
one being the contemporary of Tiglath-pileser I., the 
other of his son Ashur-bel-kala. 4 The close sequence 
of the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar I., Enlil-nadin-apli, 
and Marduk-nadin-akhe has long been recognized from 
the occurrence of the same officials on legal documents 
of the period.* We must therefore place the newly 
recovered ruler in the gap before Nebuchadnezzar 1. ; 
he must be one of the first three kings of the dynasty, 

E ossibly its founder, whose name in the Kings’ List 
egins with the, divine title Marduk, and who ruled 
for seventeen years according to the same authority. 
Another of these missing rulers may perhaps be 

1 See “Boundary-Stones in the Brit. Mus./’ pp. 96 ff. 

2 The Fourth Dynasty was known as that of iRin, and the fact that its 
founder should have come from there is to be explained by the magnitude 
of the disaster to Northern Babylonia. The city had been known as 
Nlsin in the earlier period (see above, p. 91, n. 1), but even then there 
was a tendency to drop the initial n. 

3 I owe this information to Prof. Clay, who is preparing the text for 
publication. 

4 See below, p. 256. 

6 Op. cit., p. 37. 






RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA 255 

restored as Ea-nadin-[. . . .], if the royal name in the 
broken inscription of Nebuchadnezzar I., to which 
reference has already been made, 1 is to be read in 
that way and not identified as that of the last member 
of the Kassite Dynasty. During the earlier years of 
the Dynasty of I sin Babylonia must have been subject 
to further Elamite aggression, and portions of the 
country may for a time have acknowledged the suze- 
rainty of her rulers. 

Nebuchadnezzar’s successes against Elam and the 
neighbouring district of Lulubu 2 no doubt enabled him to 
offer a more vigorous defence of his northern frontier ; 
and, when Ashur-resh-ishi attempted an invasion of 
Babylonian territory, he not only drove the Assyrians 
back, but followed them up and laid siege to the frontier 
fortress of Zanki. But Ashur-resh-ishi forced him to 
raise the siege and burn his siege-train ; and, on Nebu- 
chadnezzar’s return with reinforcements, the Babylonian 
army suffered a further defeat, losing its fortified camp 
together with Karashtu, the general in command of the 
army, who was taken to Assyria as a prisoner of war. 
Babylon thus proved that, though strong enough to 
recover and maintain her independence, she was inca- 
pable of a vigorous offensive on a large scale. It is 
true that Nebuchadnezzar claimed among his titles 
that of “ Conqueror of Amurru,” 3 but it is doubt- 
ful whether we should regard the term as implying 
more than a raid into the region of the middle 
Euphrates. 4 

That within her own borders Babylon maintained 
an effective administration is clear from a boundary- 
stone of the period of Nebuchadnezzar’s successor, Enlil- 
nadin-apli, recording a grant of land In the district of 
Edina in Southern Babylonia by E-anna-shum-iddina, 
a governor of the Sea-Country, who administered that 


1 See above, p. 245, n. 1. 

4 Nebuchadnezzar laid claim to the title, “ Conqueror of the mighty land 
of Lulubu” ; gee “Boundary Stones," p. 51, 1. y. 

» Ibid., 1. 10. 

4 A current exaggeration of Babylon’s dominion in the West under 
Nebuchadnezzar 1 . appears to have arisen from a confusion as to the author- 
ship of Nebuchadnezzar II. 's fragmentary inscription at the Nahr-el-Kelb, 
which is written in archaistic characters. 



25G 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


district under the Babylonian king and owed his appoint- 
ment to him . 1 But in the reign of Marduk-nadin-akhe, 
she was to suffer her second great defeat at the hands 
of Assyria. She fought two campaigns with Tiglath- 
pileser T., in the latter part of his reign, after his 
successes in the North and West . 2 In the first she 
met with some success , 3 but on the second occasion 
Tiglath-pileser completely reversed its result, and fol- 
lowed up his victory by the capture of Babylon itself 
with other of the great northern cities, Dur-lvurigalzu, 
Sippar of Shamash, Sippar of Anunitum, and Opis. 
But Assyria did not then attempt a permanent occupa- 
tion, for we find Tiglath-pileser s son, Ashur-bel-kala, 
on friendly terms with Marduk-shapik-zer-mati ; and 
when the latter, after a prosperous reign , 4 lost his throne 
to the Aramean usurper Adad-aplu-iddina , 5 6 he further 
strengthened the alliance by contracting a marriage with 
the new king’s daughter . 8 

Thus closed the first phase of Babylon’s relations 
with the growing Assyrian power. A state of alternate 
conflict and’ temporary truce had been maintained 
between them for some three centuries, and now for 
more than half a century the internal condition of 
both countries was such as to put an end to any policy 
of aggression. The cause of Babylon’s decline was the 
overrunning of the country by the Sutu, semi-nomad 
Semitic tribes from beyond the Euphrates , 7 who made 
their first descent during Adad-aplu-iddina’s later years, 

1 Cf. “Boundary-Stones in the Brit. Mus.,” pp. 70 ff. 

2 Tiglath-pileser was the first Assyrian monarch, with the possible ex- 
ception of Shamslii-Adad III., to carry Assyrian arms to the coast of the 
Mediterranean ; and in consequence lie attracted Egyptian notice. 

3 It was then that Iviarduk-nadin-akhe must have carried off the statues 
of Adad and Simla from Ekallati, which Sennacherib afterwards recovered on 
his capture of Babylon in 089 B.c. ; cf. “Records of Tukulti-Ninib I.,” 
p. 118 f. 

4 A later chronicle credits him with having established his suzerainty over 

a large number of petty kings and rulers, and adds that they “ beheld 
abundance ” ; cf. King, “ Chronicles,” I., p. 190, II., p. 57 f. 

6 The “Synchronistic History” makes Adad-aplu-iddina the son of 
E-sagil-sliaduni, a man of humble origin ; hut, according to a Babylonian 
tradition, his father was Itti-Marduk-balatu, the Aramean (op. cit. y 1 ., p. 191, 
II., p. 59), and this is more probably correct. 

8 See “Annals of the Kings of Assyria, ’* pp. liii. ff. 

7 On the Sutu and their connexion with the Arameans, see Streck. 

“Klio,” VI., pp 209 ff. 



RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA 257 


and, according to a Neo-Babylonian chronicle, carried 
off with them the spoil of Sumer and Akkad. This 
was . probably the first of many raids, and we may see 
evidence of the unsettled condition of the country in the 
ephemeral Babylonian dynasties, which followed one 
another in quick succession . 1 

The later ruler, Nabu-aplu-iddina, when recording 
his rebuilding of the great temple of the Sun-god at 
Sippar , 2 has left us some details of this troubled time ; 
and the facts he relates of one of the great cities of 
Akkad may be regarded as typical of the general con- 
dition of the country. The temple had been wrecked 
by the Sutu, doubtless at the time of Adad-aplu-iddina, 
and it was not until the reign of Simmash-Shipak, who 
came from the Country of the Sea and founded the 
Fiftli Dynasty , 3 * S that any attempt was made to re- 
establish the interrupted service of the deity. His 
successor, Ea-miikin-zer, did not retain the throne for 
more than five months, and in the reign of Kashshu- 
nadin-akhi, w r ith whom the dynasty closed, the country 
suffered further misfortunes, the general distress, occa- 
sioned by raids and civil disturbance, being increased by 
famine. Thus the service of the temple again suffered, 
until under E-ulmash-shakin-shum of Bit-Bazi, who 
founded the Sixth Dynasty, a partial re-endowment 
of the temple took place. But its half ruinous con- 
dition continued to attest the poverty ‘ of the country 
and of its rulers, until the more prosperous times of 
Nabu-aplu-iddina. E-ulmash-shakin-shum was succeeded 
by two members of his own house, Ninib-kudur-usur 

1 For a discussion of the evidence supplied by the^Kings* List and the 
fragmentary Assyrian Dynastic Chronicle with regard to the Fifth, Sixth, and 
so-called Seventh Dynasties, see 44 Chronicles,” 1., pp. 183 IF. 

2 See below, p. 260 f. 

3 We know little more than the names of Adad-aplu-iddina’s three 
successors, Marduk-akhi-cyba, Marduk-zer-[. . . .], and Nabd-shum-libur, 
with whose reign the Fourth Dynasty closed (cf. King, “ Proc. Soc. Bibl. 
Arch./' p. 221). The dynasty founded by Simmash-Shipak has by some been 
regardeaasof Chaldean origin ; and it is possible that Chaldean tribes, though 
not mentioned in the inscriptions before the period of Ashur-nasir-pal and 

Shalmaneser, had already begun to overrun the southern districts of Baby- 
lonia. For a discussion of a passage in a religious chronicle, which may 
possibly record a solar eclipse in Simmash-Shipak’s seventh year, see King, 
“ Chronicles,’ ’ I., pp. 232 If., and Cowell, “Monthly Notices of the Roy. 
Astr. Soc./’ LXV., pp. 865, 867. 

S 



258 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


and Shilanum-Shukamuna ; but they reigned between 
them less than four years, and the throne then passed 
for six years to an Elamite , 1 whose rule is regarded by 
the later chroniclers as having constituted in itself the 
Seventh Babylonian Dynasty. 

A stable government was once more established in 



Fig. 58. 


SCENE REPRESENTING NAB£-MUK?N-APLI SANCTIONING A TRANSFER OF LANDED 

PROPERTY. 

Arad-Sibitti, accompanied by his sister, receives the royal sanction to the 
transfer of an estate, situated in the district of Sha-mamltu, to his daughter as 
her dowry. « 

[From Boundary-Stone No. 90835 in the British Musoum.] 

Babylonia by Nabu-mukin-apli, the founder of the Eighth 
Dynasty , 2 though even in his reign Aramean tribes con- 

1 For the possible restoration of his name as Ae-aplu-usur, see 
“ Chronicles/’ I., p. 200 f. 

2 There were about thirteen kings of the Eighth Dynasty, and, though 
their names are completely wanting in the Kings’ List, some of them are 
preserved in records concerning their relations with Assyria. In the gap 
between Nabfi-muktn-apli and Shamash-mudaminik we may probably place 
Sibir, a Babylonian king whom Ashur-nasir-pal mentions as having founded t 
Atlila, a city in Zamua, which he himself rebuilt as a royal residence and 





RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA 259 

tinued to give trouble, holding the Euphrates in the 
neighbourhood of Babylon and Borsippa, cutting com- 
munications, and raiding the country-side. On one 
occasion they captured the Ferry- Gate of Kar-bel- 
matati and prevented the king from holding the New 
Year’s Festival, as the statue of the god Nabu could 
not be transported across the river to Babylon . 1 A 
rude portrait of this monarch is preserved on a boundary - 
stone of his reign, on which he is represented giving the 
royal sanction to the transfer of an estate in the district 
of Sha-mamitu ; and it may be added that considerable 
friction subsequently took place, with regard to the 
validity of the title, between the original owner Arad- 
Sibitti and his son-in-law, a jewel-worker named 
Burusha . 2 The coarse style of the engraving is probably 
to be explained by the fact of its provincial origin, 
though there can be little doubt that the standard of 
Babylonian art had been adversely affected by the 
internal condition of the country during the preceding 
period. 

It was at the time of the Eighth Dynasty that the 
renaissance of Assyria took place, which culminated in 
the victories of that ruthless conqueror Ashur-nasir-pal 
and of his son Shalmaneser III. Its effect was first felt 
in Babylon in the reign of Shamash-mudammik, who 
suffered a serious defeat in the neighbourhood of Mt. 
Ialman at the hands of Adad-nirari III’., Ashur-nasir- 
pal’s grandfather. Against Nabu-shum-ishkun I., the 
murderer and successor of Shamash-mudammik, Adad- 
nirari secured another victory, several Babylonian cities 
with much spoil falling into his hands. But we subse- 
quently find him on friendly terms with, Babylon, and 
allying himself with Nabu-shum-ishkun, or possibly 
with his successor, each monarch marrying the other’s 
daughter . 8 His son Tukulti-Ninib il. of Assyria, 

renamed Dur-Ashur (cf. “ Annals,” p. 325). It is improbable that Sibir was 
one of the missing- rulers of the Kassite Dynasty, the only other period to 
which his reign could be assigned. For the broken name [. . . . -akh]e- 
iddina, possibly that of another ruler of this period, see “ Chronicles,” II., p. 63. 

1 Op. cit., II., p. 81 f. 

2 See Fig. 58 ; and cf. “ Boundary-Stones in the Brit. Mus.,” pp. 51 ff. 

3 Cf. “Annals,” pp. lvii. If. Nabu-shum-ishkun s name, attested by Syn. 
Hist.,” III., 9 ff., appears to be given as [Nabu-sh]um-ukiii in “ Chron./’ 11.. 
p. 64. 



260 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


profiting by the renewed sense of security from attack 
upon his southern border, began to make tentative 
efforts at expanding westwards into Mesopotamia. But 
it was reserved for Ashur-nasir-pal, his son, to cross the 
Euphrates and lead Assyrian armies once more into 
Syrian territory. After securing his frontier to the east 
and north of Assyria, Ashur-nasir-pal turned his atten- 
tion to the west. The Aramean states of Bit-Khadippi 
and Bit-Adini, both on the left bank of the Euphrates, 
fell before his onslaught. Then crossing the Euphrates 
on rails of skins, he received the submission of Sangar 
of Carchemisli, and marched in triumph through Syria 
to the coast., 

Babylon naturally viewed this encroachment on the 
Euphrates route to the west as a danger to her com- 
mercial connexions, and it Is not surprising that Nabu- 
aplu-iddina should have attempted to oppose Ashur- 
nasir-pal’s advance by allying himself ’with Shadudu of 
Suklii . 1 But the armed forces he sent to support the 
people of Sukhi in their resistance were quite unable to 
withstand the Assyrian onslaught, and his brother 
Sabdanu and Bel-aplu-iddin, the Babylonian leader, fell 
into Ashur-nasir-pal’s hands. In recording his victory 
the Assyrian king refers to the Babylonians as the 
Kassites , 2 a striking tribute to the fame of the foreign 
dynasty which had ended more than three centuries 
before. Nabu-aplu-iddina evidently realized the futility 
of attempting further opposition to Assyrian aims, and 
he was glad to establish relations of a friendly character, 
which he continued in the reign of Shalmaneser. He 
attempted to forget the failure of his military expedition 
by repairing the damage inflicted during the numerous 
Aramean raids upon the ancient cult - centres of 
Babylonia. 

He is the king who restored and re-endowed so 
richly the temple of Shamash at Sippar, digging in the 
ruins of former structures till he found the ancient 


1 Sukhi lay on the middle Euphrates, near the mouth of the Khabur. Its 
position is accurately indicated by Tiglath-pileser I., who records that he 
plundered the Aramean Akhlarni from the neighbourhood of Sukhi up to 
Carchemish in one day (cf. “Annals,” p. 73). For a later monument from 
the district, see below, p. 265 f. 

2 Cf. “ Annals/* p. 351 f. 






RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA 261 


yru./w 


image of the god. He redecorated the shrine, and 
with much ceremony re-established the ritual and offer- 
ings for the god, placing them under the control of 
Nabh-nadin-shum, a descendant of the former priest 
E-kur-shum-ushabshi, whom Simmash-Shipak had in- 
stalled at Sippar. The sculptured scene on the stone 
memorial-tablet, which records the re-endowment of the 
temple, represents Nabu-aplu-iddina being led by the 
priest Nabu-nadin-shum and 
the goddess Aia into the 
presence of the Sun-god, who is 
seated in his temple E-babbar. 

Before the god is the solar 
disk resting upon an altar sup- 
ported by attendant deities, 
whose bodies spring from the 
roof of the shrine . 1 

The skill of the Babylonian 
craftsmen at this period is also 
attested by a cylinder of lapis- 
lazuli, engraved in low relief 
with a figure of Marduk and 
his dragon, which was dedi- 
cated in E-sagila at Babylon 
by Marduk-zakir-shum, the 
son and successor of Nabu- 
aplu-iddina. It was originally 
coated with gold, and the 
design and execution of the 
figure may be compared with 
those of the Sun-god Tablet, 
as an additional example of the decorative character of 
Babylonian stone-engraving in the ninth century. 

It was in Marduk-zakir-shum’s reign that Assyria 
capped her conquests of this period by becoming the 
suzerain of Babylon. Under Ashur-nasir-pal and Shal- 
maneser the military organization of the country had 
been renewed, and both made effective use of their 

1 See Plate XXIII. For a translation of the memorial, see “ Bab. Boundary- 
Stones and Memorial Tablets in the Brit. Mus.,” pp. 120 ff. The tablet was 
found in a clay coffer, in which it had been placed at a later period by Nabo- 

' ptured scene, to preserve the 



Fig. 59. 

MARDUK AND HIS DBAGON FROM A 
VOTIVE OFFEEING OF MARDUK- 
ZAKIR-SHUM. 


[After Weissbach.] 


round in a clay coffer, m which it had been placed 
polassar, together with clay impressions of the 9culpl 
design of the relief in case the tablet itself should < 


eventually be broken. 




262 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

extraordinarily efficient armies. Ashur-nasir-pal’s policy 
was one of annihilation, and the speed with which he 
struck ensured his success. Thus when he crossed the 
Euphrates after taking Carchemish, the king of 
Damascus, the most powerful and important state in 
Syria, made no attempt to oppose him or to organize a 
defence. He had evidently been taken by surprise. 

But Syria then learned her lesson, and at the battle 
of Karkar in 854 b.c. Shalmaneser found himself 
opposed by a confederation of the northern kings, and, 


Q ..yL- 0 - 


JU> J$L ~L- D 

i 

- 




isp 

L 

f O o 

$ 4 


®:Jb o._ 

l 

1 

2 

2 

__ S 

rnt 
L % 

m 

j| 


L 

y 



mMin^ 


Fig. 60., 


THE ASSYRIAN ARMY IN CHALDEA, 851 B.O* 

In the upper register Assyrian foot-soldiers and cavalry are seen crossing 
a stream by a bridge of boats, while below the army is represented loading its 
fortified camp. 

[From the Gates of Shalmaneser in the British Museum.] 

though he eventually succeeded in ravaging the territory 
of Damascus, the city itself held out. In fact, the stub- 
born resistance of Damascus prevented any further 
attempt on Assyria’s part at this period to penetrate 
further into Southern Syria and Palestine. So Shal- 
maneser had to content himself with marching north- 
wards across Mt. Amanus, subjugating Cilicia and 
exacting tribute from districts north of the Taurus. 
He also conducted a successful campaign in Armenia, 
from which quarter one of Assyria’s most powerful 
enemies was about to arise. But it was in Babylonia 



RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA 263 


that he secured his principal political success. He has 
left us a pictorial record of his campaigns on the bronze 
sheathing of two cedar-wood doors of his palace ; and, 
as one of the bands commemorates his triumphal march 
through Chaldea in 851 n.e., it gives us some indication 
of the condition of the country at this time. 

The occasion for Shalmaneser’s intervention in Baby- 
lonian affairswas furnished by internal dissension. 1 When 
Marduk-bel-usate, the brother of Marduk-zakir-shum, 
revolted, and divided the country into two armed camps, 
Shalmaneser readily responded to the latter’s appeal 
for help, and marching southwards succeeded in defeating 
the rebels and in ravaging the districts under their con- 
trol. On a second expedition in the following year he 
completed his work by slaying Marduk-bel-usate in 



[Prom the Gates of Shalmaneser.] 

battle, and he was then acknowledged by Marduk-zakir- 
shum as his suzerain. In this capacity he toured 
through the principal cities of Akkad, offering sacrifices 
in the famous temples of Cuthah, Babylon, and Borsippa. 
He also led his army into Chaldea, and, after storming 
its frontier fortress of Bakani, received the submission 
of its ruler, Adini, and heavy tribute from him and from 
Iakin, the Chaldean king of the Sea-Country further to 
the south. In his representation of the campaign Shal- 
maneser is portrayed marching through the country, 

1 See King, u The Gates of Shalmaneser/’ pp. 18 31 £. 


264 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


and receiving tribute from the Chaldeans, which they 
carry from their cities and ferry across streams to deposit 
in the presence of the king and his officials. 

But Babylon did not long endure the position of a 
vassal state, and Shalmaneser’s son and successor, 
Shamshi-Adad IV., attempted her reconquest, plunder- 
ing many cities before he met with serious opposition. 
Marduk-balatsu-ikbi, the Babylonian king, had mean- 
while collected his forces, which included armed levies 




Figs. 62 and 63. 

THE TRIBUTE OP THE CHALDEANS, 

In Fig. 62 Chaldeans are represented convoying tribute across a Rtream in 
boats ; in Fig. 63 they deposit it at a bridge-head hold by the Assyrians. 

[From the Gates of Shalmaneser.] 

from Elam, Chaldea, and other districts. The two 
armies met near the city of Dur-Papsukal, the Baby- 
lonians were totally defeated, and a, rich booty fell to 
their conqueror. During a subsequent interregnum 
Erba-Marduk, the son of Marduk-shakin-shum, secured 
the throne, owing his election to his success in driving 
Aramean raiders from the cultivated fields of Babylon 
and Borsippa . 1 But he did not reign for long, and when 

1 Cf. “Chronicles,” II., p. 66 ff. 




RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA 265 

Babylon continued to give trouble to Assyria, Adad- 
nirari IV., the successor of Shamshi-Adad, again sub- 
jugated a considerable portion of the country, carrying 
away Bau-akhi-iddina, the Babylonian king, as a captive 
to Assyria, together with the treasures of his palace . 1 

During the following half-century our knowledge 
of Babylonian affairs is a blank, and we have not as 
yet recovered even the names of the last members 
of the Eighth Dynasty. This epoch corresponds to 
a period of weakness and inaction in the northern 
kingdom, such as more than once before had followed 
a forward movement on her part. The expansion of 
Assyria, in fact, took place in a series of successive 
waves, and when one had spent itself, a recoil preceded 
the next advance. The principal cause of her con- 
traction, after the brilliant reigns of Shalmaneser III. 
and his father, may undoubtedly be traeed to the rise 
jf a new pow£r in the mountains of Armenia. From 
their capital on the shore of Lake Van, the Urartians 
marched southward and menaced the northern frontier 
of Assyria itself. Her kings could no longer dream of 
further adventures in the West, which would leave their 
home territory at the mercy of this new foe. Urartu 
became now the principal drag on Assyria’s ambitions, 
a part which was afterwards so effectively played by 
Elam in alliance with Babylon. 

It is to this period we may probably assign an inte- 
resting provincial monument, discovered in Babylon , 2 
which illustrates the independent position enjoyed by 
the rulers of local districts at a time when the central 
control of either kingdom, and particularly of Assyria, 
was relaxed. The monument commemorates the prin- 
cipal achievements of Shamash-rcsh-usur, governor of 
the lands of Sukhi and Mari on the middle Euphrates . 3 
He may have owed his appointment to Assyria, but 

1 Cf. “ Keilins. Bill.,” I., p. 202 f. At this point the record of the 
“ Synchronistic History” ceases; and it is only with the reign of Nabo- 
nassar, the second king of the Ninth Bynasty, that our knowledge of the 
Babylonian succession becomes fuller. Iu addition to the evidence afforded by 
tho Kings’ List, the information contained in the Babylonian Chronicle and 
the Ptolemaic Canon then becomes available. 

2 See Weissbacli, “ Bahylonisclie Miscellen,” pp. 9 ff. 

• See above, p. 200, n. 1. 



266 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

he speaks like a reigning monarch and dates the record 
in his thirteenth year. On it he records his suppression 
of a revolt of the Tu’manu tribe, who threatened his 
capital Ribanish, while he was holding festival in the 
neighbouring town of Baka. But he attacked them 
with the people who were with him, slew three hundred 
and fitly of them, and the rest submitted. He also 
records how he dug out the Sukhi Canal, when it had 



BAB-RELIKF OF BHAMA8H-b48H-0?CB, GOVERNOR OF THE LANDS OF 8UKIJI AND 

MARI. 

The scene represents Shamash-rGsh-usur standing before the god Adad and 
the goddess Ishtar. The ftono was set up in Gabbari-ibni, a city he had founded 
and it oornmeniorates his achievements, the one of which he was most proud 
being the introduction of honey-bees into the land of Sukhi. 

[After a photo, by Weissbach.] 

silted up, and how he planted palm-trees in his palace at 
Ribanish. But his most notable act, according to his 
own account, was the introduction of bees into Sukhi, 
which his improved irrigation of the district doubtless 
rendered possible. “ Bees which collect honey,” he tells 
us, “which no man had seen since the time of my 
fathers and forefathers, nor had brought to the land of 


RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA 267 

Sukhi, I brought down from the mountains of the 
Khabkha-tribe and I put them in the garden of 
Gabbari-ibni.” The text closes with an interesting 
little note upon the bees : “ They collect honey and 
,wax. The preparing of honey and wax I understand, 
and the gardeners understand it.” And he adds that 
in days to come a ruler will ask the elders of his land, 
“ Is it true that Shamash-resh-usur, governor of Sukhi, 
brought honey-bees into the land of Sukhi ? ” The 
monument may well have been carried to Babylon by 
Nebuchadnezzar II., when he incorporated the district 
within his empire. 

The subsequent period shows a gradual tightening 
of Assyria’s grasp upon the southern kingdom, varied 
by comparatively ineffective struggles and revolts on 
Babylon’s part to avoid her loss of independence. The 
temporary decline of Assyrian power enabled Babylon 
for a time to regain something of her former position 
under Nabu-shum-ishkun II., an early king of the Ninth 
Dynasty, and his successor Nabonassar. But the military 
revolt in Assyria, which in 745 b.c. placed Tiglath- 
pileser IV. upon the throne, 1 put a speedy end to 
Babylon’s hopes of any permanent recovery of power. 
His accession marks the beginning of the last period of 
Assyrian expansion, and the administrative policy he 
inaugurated justifies us in ascribing the term “ empire ” 
to the area conquered by him, and his successors, in the 
last half of the eighth and the first half of the seventh 
centuries b.c. But it was an empire which carried in 
itself from the outset the seeds of decay. It was based 
on a policy of deportation, Assyria’s final answer to her 
pressing problem of how to administer the wide areas 
she annexed. Former Assyrian kings had carried away 
the conquered into slavery, but Tiglath-pileser IV. 
inaugurated a regular transference of nations. The 
policy certainly effected its immediate object : it kept 
the subject provinces quiet. But as a permanent method 
of administration it was bound to be a failure. While 
destroying patriotism and love of country, it put an end 

1 He was an Assyrian general named Pulu, the leader of the revolt, and 
he took the famous name of Tiglath-pileser to mark his assumption of royal 
rank ; but he retained his own name in Babylon (see p. 208). 



268 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

at the same time to all incentives to labour. The sub- 
ject country’s accumulated wealth had already been 
drained for the benefit of Assyrian coffers ; and in the 
hands of its half-starved colonists it was not likely to 
prove a permanent source of strength, or of wealth, to 
its suzerain. 

Tiglath-pileser’s first object, before launching his 
armies to the north and west, was to secure his 
southern frontier, and this he effected by invading 
Babylonia and forcing from Nabonassar an acknow- 
ledgment of Assyrian control. During the campaign 
he overran the northern districts, and applied his policy 
of deportation by carrying away many of their inhabi- 
tants. The distress in the country, due to the Assyrian 
inroads, was aggravated by internal dissension. Sippar 
repudiated Nabonassar ’s authority, and the revolt was 
subdued only after a siege of the city. 1 The Ninth 
Dynasty ended with the country in confusion ; for 
Nabu-nadin-zer, Nabopolassar’s son, after a reign of 
only two years, was slain in a revolt by Nabu-shum-ukin, 
the governor of a province. 2 The dynasty soon came to 
an end after the latter’s accession. He had not enjoyed 
his position for more than a month, when the kingdom 
again changed hands, and Nabu-mukin-zfir secured the 
throne. 

From the fall of the Ninth Dynasty, until the rise of 
the Neo-Baby lonia*n Empire, Babylonia was completely 
overshadowed by the power of Assyria. She became 
merely a subject province of the empire, and her Tenth 
Dynasty is mainly composed of Assyrian rulers or 
their nominees. Nabu-mukin-zor had reigned only 
three years when Tiglath-pileser again invaded Baby- 
lonia, took him captive, and ascended the throne of 
Babylon, where he ruled under his name of Pulu.® 
On his death, which occurred two years later, he was 
succeeded by Shalmaneser V., who, 'as suzerain of 
Babylon, adopted the name of Ululai. But Babylonia 

1 Though we only possess a few contract- tablets of this period, the fact 
that the Ptolemaic Canon begins with the reign of Nabonassar (see above, p. 
265, n. 1) is evidence that it marked a revival of literary activity, accompanied 
by a study of the chronology and possibly by a revision of the calendar. 

2 So “Bab. Chron.,” I., 16 ; in the Kings' List he is described as the son 
of Nabu-nadin-zer. 

3 See above, p. 267, n. 1. 








RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA 269 

soon demonstrated her power of hindering Assyrian 
plans, for, after the close of Shalmaneser’s reign, when 
Sargon’s army had secured the capture of Samaria, he 
was obliged to recall his forces from the West by the 
menace of his southern province. Merodach-baladan, a 
Chaldean chief of Bit-Iakin 1 at the head of the Persian 
Gulf, now laid claim to the throne of Babylon. By 
himself he would not have been formidable to Assyria, 
but he was backed by an unexpected and dangerous 
ally. Elam had not meddled in Babylonian affairs for 
centuries, but she had gradually become alarmed at the 
growth of Assyrian power. So Ivhumbanigash, the 
Elamite king, allying himself with Merodach-baladan, 
invaded Babylonia, laid siege to the frcfntier fortress of 
Dcr or Dur-ilu on the Lower Tigris, and defeated Sargon 
and the Assyrian army before its walls. Merodach- 
baladan was acknowledged by the Babylonians as their 
king, and he> continued to be a thorn in the side of 
Assyria. 

After the defeat of Shabaka and the Egyptians at 
Raphia, Sargon was occupied with the 1 final subjuga- 
tion of Urartu in the north, which had for so long 
been a danger to Assyria. But Urartu had to fight, 
not only the Assyrians, but also a new enemy, the 
Cimmerians, who now made their appearance from the 
north and east. In fact, Sargon’s conquest of Urartu 
resulted in the destruction of that people as a buffer 
* state, and laid Assyria open to the direct attack of the 
barbarian invaders, though it was not until the reign 
of Esarhaddon that their activity began to be formid- 
able. Meanwhile, having subjugated his other foes, 
Sargon was able to turn his attention once more to 
Babylon, from which he expelled Merodach-baladan. 
His appearance was welcomed by the priestly party, 
and, entering the city in state, he assumed the title 
of Governor and for the last seven years of his life he 
ruled in Babylon virtually as king. A memorial of his 
occupation survives to-day in the quay-wall, which he 

1 Merodach-baladan claimed descent from ErbaMarduk, the king of the 
Eighth Dynasty who secured the throne of Babylon by his services against 
the Arameans (see above, p. 264). He made himself popular in Babylon by 
restoring to its former owners property confiscated by the Assyrians. In the 
Frontispiece to this volume he is portrayed making a grant of land to his 
governor of Babylon. 



270 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

constructed along the north front of the Southern 
Citadel. 1 

On Sargon’s death in 705 b.c. the subject provinces 
of the empire rebelled. The revolt was led by Babylon, 
where Merodach-baladan reappears with Elamite sup- 
port, 2 while Hezekiah of Judah headed a confederation 
of the states of Southern Syria. Sennacherib was first 
occupied with Babylon, where he had little difficulty 
in defeating Merodach-baladan and his allies. He was 
then free to deal with Syria and Palestine ; and at 
Eltekeh, near Ekron, he routed the Egyptian army, 
which had come to the support of the rebel states. He 
then received the submission of Ekron, and took 
Lachish after a 'siege, though Tyre resisted. After his 
expulsion from Babylon Merodach-baladan had sought 
safety by hiding himself in the Babylonian swamps, 
where he allied himself with the Chaldean prince 
Mushezib-Marduk ; and Babylon had ’been left in 
charge of Bel-ibni, a young native Babylonian, who had 
been brought up at the Assyrian court. A rising, 
headed by Mushezib-Marduk, brought Sennacherib 
again into the country, who, after defeating the rebels, 
carried off Bel-ibni and his nobles to Assyria, leaving 
his own son Ashur-nadin-shum upon the throne. 

The country was in a state of continual disaffection, 
and after a few years a fresh revolt was headed by a 
Babylonian, Nergal-ushezib. But he ruled for little 
more than a year, being defeated by Sennacherib 
and sent in chains to Nineveh. This took place after 
the return of the Assyrian army from Nagitu, whither 
it had been conveyed by Sennacherib, across the 
head of the Persian Gulf, against the Chaldeans whom 
Merodach-baladan*had settled there.* Sennacherib then 
turned his forces against Elam, and, after plundering 

1 See above, p. 32 f. 

2 According to the Ptolemaic Canon, the two years following Sargon’s 
death formed a period of interregnum, though the Kings’ List assigns the 
throne to Sennacherib. However this may be, we know that in 703 Marduk- 
zakir-shum proclaimed himself king ; but he had only reigned for one month 
when he was murdered hy Merodach-baladan. 

3 In spite of Sennacherib’s devastation of Chaldea, Merodach-baladan had 
assisted Mushezib-Marduk in his revolt ; but he had then fled with his followers 
in ships to the coast of Elam, where he died. Sennacherib built ships on the 
Tigris and dragged them overland to the Euphrates, where his troops embarked. 



RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA 271 


a considerable portion of the country, he was stopped in 
his advance into the interior by the setting in of winter. 
In his absence the Chaldean Mushezib-Marduk seized 
the throne of Babylon, and allied himself with Elam. 
But the combined armies were defeated at Khalule, and 
after the death of Umman-menanu, the Elamite king, 
in 689, Sennacherib seized Babylon. Exasperated at 
her disaffection, he attempted to 
put an end for all time to her 
constant menace by destroying the 
city. He succeeded in doing an 
enormous amount of damage, and, 
by deflecting the course of the 
Euphrates, wiped out large areas 
and turned them into swamps. 1 2 
For the last eight years of Senna- 
cherib’s reign the country was 
given over to a state of anarchy. 

In 681 Sennacherib was mur- 
dered by his sons, and, after a 
struggle for the succession, Esar- 
haddon secured the throne. His 
first thought was to reverse com- 
pletely his father’s Babylonian 
policy, and by rebuilding the city 
and restoring its ancient privileges 
to placate the priestly party, 
whose support his grandfather, 

Sargon, had secured.' 1 In 668 b.c. 
the statue of Marduk was restored 
to its shrine, and Esarhaddon’s 
son, Shamash-shum-ukin, was 
proclaimed King of Babylon. At* the same time 
Esarhaddon sought to reconcile the military and ag- 

f ressive party in his own capital by crowning Ashur- 
ani-pal, his eldest son, as king in Assyria. But 



Fig. C5. 

THE GOD ADAD FROM A VOTIVE 
OFFERING DEDICATED IN E- 
SAGILA BY ESARHADDON. 

[After Weiss bach.] 


1 An interesting description of the state of Babylon on Esarhaddon’s 
accession is given in the recently published cylinder, inscribed in the year of 
his accession ; cf. King, “ Kouyunjik Catalogue (Supplement),” pp. xviii. f., 
7 f., and “ Cun. Texts in the Brit. Mus.,’* XXXIV., pi. 1 f. 

2 We have recovered a lapis-lazuli cylinder-seal, engraved with a figure of 
“ Adad of E-sagila,” which he dedicated in that temple ; see Fig. 65, and cf. 
Weissbach, “Bab. Misc.,” p. 17* 



m HISTORY OF BABYLON ' 

Babylon was still taught to look upon Assyria as her 
suzerain, and the spirit of disaffection was only driven 
for the moment underground. Esarhaddon’s aim had 
been to retain the territory already incorporated in the 
Assyrian empire, and, had he been able to confine his 
country’s energies within these limits, its existence as a 
state might have been prolonged. But he was unable 
to curb the ambitions of his generals, and, in his effort 
to find employment for the army, he achieved the 
ultimate object of his father’s western campaigns, the 
conquest of Egypt. 

It was soon apparent that Esarhaddon’s occupa- 
tion of that country had been merely nominal, and it 
thus fell to his son Ashur-bani-pal to continue the 
Egyptian war, and to complete the work his father had 
left unfinished. And though he met with far greater 
success, he too in the end found the task of any 

P ermanent conquest beyond his power. 1 '' For he soon 
ad his hands full with troubles nearer home, in con- 
sequence of which his hold on Egypt gradually relaxed. 
Urtaku of Elam, who invaded Babylonia, does not 
appear to have followed up his success ; and the sub- 
sequent invasion of the country by Teumman was only 
followed by that ruler’s defeat and death in battle. 
But the strength of Elam was not broken by this 
reverse, and, when Shamash-shum-ukin revolted, he 
received active Elamite support. 

Not only in Elam, but also throughout the territory 
controlled by Assyria, Shamash-shum-ukin found sup- 
port in his rebellion, a fact significant of the detestation 
of Assyrian rule in the scattered provinces of the 
empire, which continued to be held together only by 
fear. But the force at Ashur-bani-pal’s disposal was 
still powerful enough to stamp out the conflagration 
and head off disaster for a time. He marched into 
Babylonia, besieged and captured Babylon, and his 
brother Shamash-shum-ukin met his death in the flames 
of his palace in 648 b.c. The Assyrian king then 

1 Esarhaddon had plundered Memphis, but in a few months it had been 
recovered by Egypt and the Assyrian garrison massacred. On his final 
Egyptian campaign in 661, Ashur-bani-pal sacked and destroyed Thebes, and 
for some years afterwards Egypt continued to acknowledge Assyrian control. 




A ^ II I’ k I’-WI I ‘A I AS IH) klslnki.K III Is\ (l ||\ i 
1,11 M M I'Lh < >| \| \ lv I ‘l k \ j r, \ I I ( )\ 

/>■//. l/r^ . A,* „•» 'f.* 



RELATIONS WITH ASSYRIA 273 

invaded Elam, and, capturing its cities as he advanced, 
he laid the country under fire and sword. Susa was 
protected by its river, then in flood, but the Assyrian 
army effected a crossing, and the ancient capital lay at 
the mercy of the invaders. Having taken the city, 
Ashur-bani-pal determined to break its power for ever, 
after the manner Sennacherib had dealt with Babylon, 
He not only stripped the temples and carried off the 
treasures of the palace, but he even desecrated the royal 
tombs, and completed his work of destruction by fire. 
So Susa was plundered and destroyed, and in Babylon 
itself Ashur-bani-pal continued to be supreme until his 
death . 1 ( 

Babylonia had proved herself no match for the 
legions of Assyria at the height of the latter’s power ; 
but the industrial and commercial life of her cities, 
based ultimately on the rich return her soil yielded to 
her agricultural population, enabled her to survive 
blows which would have permanently disabled a country 
less favoured by nature. Moreover, she always regarded 
the Assyrians as an upstart people, who had borrowed 
her culture, and whose land had been a mere province 
of her kingdom at a time when her own political 
influence had extended from Elam to the borders of 
Syria. Even in her darkest hour she was buoyed up 
by the hope of recovering her ancient glory, and she let 
no opportunity slip of striking a blow at the northern 
kingdom. She was consequently always a drag on 
Assyria’s advance to the Mediterranean, for, when the 
latter’s armies marched westward, they left Babylon and 
Elam in their rear. 

In her later dealings with Babylon Assyria had 
tried the alternative policies of intiirfidation and in- 
dulgence, but with equal want of success ; and they 
reached their climax in the reigns of Sennacherib and 
Esarhaddon. It is, quite possible that either of these 
policies, if consistently pursued, would have been equally 
futile in its aim of coercing or placating Babylonia. 
But their alternation was a far worse blunder, as it only 

1 The subject of Ashur-bani-pal’ 8 probable identification with Kandalanu, 
and the subsequent relations of Babylon to Ashur-etil-il&ni, Sin-shum-lishir, 
and Sin-ghar»i8nkun will be treated in the third volume of this history. 

T 



274 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

succeeded in revealing to the Babylonians their own 
power, and in confirming them in their obstinate re- 
sistance. To this cause we may trace the long revolt 
under Shamash-shum-ukin, when Babylon with Elam at 
her back struck a succession of blows which helped in a 
material degree to reduce the power of the Assyrian 
army, already weakened by the Egyptian campaigns. 
And in 625 b.c., when the Scythians had overrun the 
Assyrian empire, and her power was on the wane, we 
find Nabopolassar proclaiming himself king in Babylon 
and founding a new empire which for nearly seventy 
years was to survive the city of Nineveh itself. 



CHAPTER IX 


THE NEO-BABYLONIAN EMPIRE AND THE PERSIAN 
CONQUEST 

F REED from her Assyrian oppressors, Babylon 
now renewed her youth, and the city attained a 
material splendour and magnificence such as she 
had not achieved during the long course of* her earlier 
history. But it took her more than a generation to 
realize to the full her newly awakened ambitions. After 
his declaration of independence, Nabopolassar ’s influence 
did not extend far beyond the walls of Babylon and 
Borsippa. The other great cities, both in the north and 
south, continued for a time to acknowledge Assyrian 
supremacy. But the sons of Ashur-bani-pal, who suc- 
ceeded him upon the throne, had inherited a reduced 
empire, whose sole support, the Assyrian army, was 
now largely composed of disheartened mercenaries. In 
Ashur-bani-pal’s reign there had been signs of coming 
change and of the appearance of new races before whom 
the Assyrians were doomed to disappear. The destruc- 
tion of Urartu had removed a vital barrier against the 
incursion of the nomad tribes, and with its disappearance 
we find new racial elements pressing into Western Asia, 
of the same Indo-European family as tliat of the JNledes 
and their Iranian kinsfolk. These were the Scythians, 
who in the middle of the seventh century had driven 
the Cimmerians before them into Asia Minor, and it 
was they who a generation later struck the death-blow 
of the Assyrian empire, pouring across it in resistless 
hordes. Assyria had no force in reserve with which to 
oppose their progress or repair their ravages. 

For centuries this great military power had struck 
terror throughout W estern Asia ; but insatiable lust for 



276 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

dominion now met with its due reward. Since Senna- 
cherib’s day the ranks of the army had been filled with 
levies drawn from her subject peoples or with mercenary 
troops, and these were a poor substitute for the race of 
hardy fighters who had been sacrificed in their country’s 
countless wars. So when the Medes invested Nineveh, 
with the possible assistance of the Scythians, and the 
passive encouragement of Babylon, the capital could- 
look for no assistance from her provinces. According 
to Herodotus 1 the Modes had already twice invaded 
Assyria before the final investment; and it was natural 
that Nabopolassar should have regarded them as his 
allies, and have concluded a definite alliance with them 
by marrying* his son Nebuchadnezzar to the daughter 
of Cyaxares, the Median king. 2 Sennacherib’s mighty 
walls kept the enemy at bay for three years, but in 606 
b.c. the city was taken by storm, and later ages pre- 
served the tradition that Sin-shar-ishkun, the Sarakos of 
the G reeks, ^>eri sh ed in the flames of his palace, rather 
than fall alive into the besiegers’ hands. 

Though *he does not appear to have taken any active 
part in the long siege of Nineveh, Nabopolassar was not 
slow in securing his share of the dismembered empire. 
The northern territory of Assyria, including Northern 
Mesopotamia, 8 fell to the Medes, while the southern 
districts became parts of Nabopolassar ’s empire under a 
possible Median suzerainty. 4 But Babylon was soon to 
put her newly organized army to the test. Two years 
before the fall of Nineveh Egypt had seized the oppor- 
tunity, afforded her by Assyria’s impotence, of occupy- 
ing Palestine and Syria. 6 She had crushed Josiah and 
his Hebrew army at Megiddo, and, though it is not 
certain whether* Judah had the support of other allies, 

1 I., 102 f. 

2 According to Abydenus in Eusebius, “X’hron., lib. 1./* ed. Schoenc, 
col. 37 ; the account is preserved in the Armenian version. 

3 This would seem to follow from Nabonidus* references to K khulkhul, 
the temple of Sin in Harran, and its destruction by the llmman-manda after 
the fall of Nineveh (cf. Langdon, “Neubab. Konigsinsohriften,” pp. 220 f., 
272 ff.) ; see Hogarth, “The Ancient East,” p. 123. The term Manda is 
loosely employed in the inscriptions. 

4 See below, pp. 278 f., 282. 

6 After throwing off the Assyrian yoke Egypt, under the XXVIth 
Dynasty, entered on a last period of independence, and it was natural that 
she should dream once more of Asiatic empire. 



THE LATER EMPIRE 277 

it is clear that Necho encountered no effective opposition 
on his advance to the Euphrates. But Nabopolassar did 
not intend to allow this portion of the Assyrian empire 
to fall to Egypt unchallenged, and he despatched a 
Babylonian force north-westwards along the Euphrates 
under the command of the crown-prince, Nebuchad- 
nezzar. The two armies met at Carchemish in 004 is.c., 
where the Egyptians were utterly routed and driven 
back through Palestine . 1 But Nebuchadnezzar did not 
press his pursuit beyond the borders of Egypt, for news 
reached him at Pelusium of Nabopolassar ’s death, and 
he was obliged to return at once to Babylon in order to 
carry out at the capital the necessary ceremonies attend- 
ing his accession to the throne. 

In spite of his withdrawal from the country, the 
greater part of Syria and Palestine lost no time in 
transferring their allegiance to Babylon. The little 
state of Judah tv as an exception, for, though she paid 
her tribute at first, she soon put the warnings of the 
prophet Jeremiah at defiance, and her short-sighted 
revolt led to the capture of Jerusalem by’ Nebuchad- 
nezzar in 590 b.c., and to the carrying away of a large 
portion of her population into captivity. A few years 
later Egypt made her last attempt to reoccupy Palestine 
and Syria, and Judah joined the Phoenician cities of 
Sidon and Tyre in rallying to her support. In 587 
Nebuchadnezzar advanced into Northerrf Syria and took 
up a strong strategic position at lli blah on the Orontes, 
whence he despatched a part of his army to besiege 
Jerusalem. An attempt by Apries, the Egyptian king, 
to relieve the city was unsuccessful, and in 580 Jerusalem 
was once more taken and the greater part of the remnant 
of the Jews followed their fellow-countrymen into exile . 2 
The Babylonian army then occupied Phoenicia, though 
the city of Tyre offered an obstinate resistance and only 

1 The Egyptian army at this time must have been a very mixed host, 
drawn in great part from the African provinces of Egypt, and its stiffening of 
Greek and Carian mercenaries was probably untrustworthy ; cf. Maspero, 
u Histoire ancient le,” 111., p. 630 f., and Hall, “ Ancient History of the Near 
East,” p. f. 

2 Zedekiah, the last of the kings of Judah, paid dearly for his rebellion. 
He was captured on his flight from Jerusalem, and carried to Kiblali, where 
Nebuchadnezzar slew his sons before his eyes, blinded him, and then sent 
him in chains to Babylon (Jl. Kings, xxv., 1 If.). 



278 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

acknowledged its allegiance to Babylon after a long siege, 
which is said to have lasted for thirteen years . 1 

Thus Nebuchadnezzar completed the work begun 
by his father, Nabopolassar, and, by the skilful and 
vigorous prosecution of his campaigns, established the 
Neo- Babylonian empire on a firm basis, so that its 
authority was unquestioned from the Persian Gulf to__ 
the Egyptian frontier. Of his later campaigns nothing” 
has yet been published, beyond a fragmentary reference 
to a conflict with Amasis of Egypt in the thirty-seventh 
year of his reign . 2 Though we do not know the circum- 
stances under which it took place, we may assume that 
the Babylonian army was again victorious against the 
Egyptian troops and the Greek mercenaries who fought 
in their ranks. A tradition is indeed preserved by 
Josephus that Nebuchadnezzar made Egypt a Baby- 
lonian province, and although this is certainly an ex- 
aggeration, the evidence suggests that lib may well have 
conducted at least one successful campaign on Egyptian 
territory. The troubles of Apries in consequence of his 
ill-advised expedition against Cyrene, followed by the 
revolt of Amasis and his own deposition and death, may 
well have furnished the occasion for a successful invasion 
of the country by Nebuchadnezzar. 

A very large number of inscriptions have been 
recovered of the Neo-Babylonian kings, but, unlike the 
foundation-recofds of Assyria, they contain no accounts 
of military expeditions, but confine themselves to com- 
memorating the restoration or erection of temples and 
palaces in Babylon and the other great cities in the land. 
Considering his military successes, this is surprising in 
Nebuchadnezzar’s case, and the suggestion nas been 
made that he may have told us so little of his expedi- 
tions and battles because they were perhaps undertaken 
at the bidding of Media as his suzerain.* Cyaxares was 
his kinsman, and the part played by Babylon in the 
conflict of Media with Lydia may well be explained on 
that hypothesis. 

1 From 586 to 673 b.c. 

2 For the text of the tablet, see Strassmaier, “ Nabuchodonosor,” p. 194, 
No. 329, and for a full discussion of its contents, cf. Winckler, “ Altorient. 
Forsch.,” I., pp. 511 ff . ; in Her., L 1, it meutions “[AmJ&su, king of 
Egypt.” 

* Cf. Hogarth, “The Ancient East/* p. 124 f. 





THE LATER EMPIRE 


279 


With the passing of Assyrian power the political 
importance of Lydia had risen considerably, and under 
Sadyattes and Alyattes, the successors of Ardys upon 
the Lydian throne, the ravages of the Cimmerian invasion 
were repaired. These monarchs had conducted a long 
series of attacks upon the cities and states of Ionia, 
and, though they were in the main successful, they 
used up the resources of the nation without obtaining 
material advantages in return. Handicapped to this 
extent, Lydia entered upon a five years’ struggle with 
the growing power of Cyaxares, who pushed back her 
eastern frontier. Matters came to a head in 585 b.c., 
when the great battle was fought on the Halys between 
Cyaxares and Alyattes on May 28th. ■ The battle is 
famous for the total eclipse of the sun, which took place 
on that day, and is said to have been foretold by the 
Greek astronomer Thales of Miletus. 1 By the subse- 
quent treaty the Halys was fixed as the frontier between 
Lydia and the Median empire, and, according to Hero- 
dotus, it was arranged in part through the mediation of 
Nebuchadnezzar. 2 * The intervention of Babylon must 
have been undertaken in the Median interest, and it is 
possible that Cyaxares could count on Nebuchadnezzar 
for more than benevolent neutrality in case of need. 

Nebuchadnezzar appears in his inscriptions as a 
mighty builder, and we nave already seen how he trans- 
formed the city of Babylon. He entirely rebuilt and 
enlarged his father’s royal palace, 8 and in the course of 
his reconstructions raised its terraced platform to so 
great a height above the surrounding city and plain, 
that its Hanging Garden became one of the seven 
wonders of the ancient world. 4 * * He rebuilt the great 
temples of E-zida at Borsippa and of.E-sagila at Baby- 
lon, and the Sacred Procession-street within the city he 

1 Herodotus (I., 74) relates that the Medes and Lydians, when they per- 
ceived the day suddenly changed into night, ceased lighting (evidently taking 
it as a portent from the gods) and were anxious for terms of peace. 

2 Tne Babylonian king must have been Nebuchadnezzar, though the name 
given by Herodotus as i( Labynetus ” is best explained as a corruption of 
Nabonidus ( Nabd-na'id ). 

8 See above, pp. 38 ff. 

4 For a suggested identification of the Hanging Gardens with a building 

in the north-east corner of the palace ou the Southern Citadel, see above, 

pp. 4u ff. 



280 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

sumptuously paved, spanning it between the temple of 
Ninmakh and his own palace with the famous Ishtar 
Gate, adorned with bulls and dragons in enamelled 
relief . 1 The fortifications of the city he also greatly 
strengthened by the extension of its double line of walls 
and the erection of new citadels . 2 During his long reign 
of forty-two years he devoted his energies and the new 
wealth of his kingdom to this work of rebuilding, both 
in the capital and in the other ancient religious centres 
of Babylonia . 8 The decoration of the facade of Nebu- 
chadnezzar’s own palace reflects the influence of the West 
upon Babylonian art ; and we may picture her markets 
and quays as thronged with foreign caravans and mer- 
chandise. Evidence of her extended horizon at this 
period may also be traced in the interest which Nebu- 
chadnezzar showed in the sea-traffic on the Persian Gulf, 
which doubtless led him to construct a harbour in the 
swamps, and to protect it against Arab raids by the 
erection of the town of Teredon to the west of the 
Euphrates, as an outpost on the desert frontier . 4 

Nebuchadnezzar’s son, Amel-Marduk, was an un- 
worthy successor to his father. During his short reign 
he was restrained neither by law nor decency , 6 and it is 
not surprising that in less than three years the priestly 
party should have secured his assassination and have set 
Neriglissar, his brother-in-law, in his place, a man of far 
stronger character and a soldier." The son of a private 
Babylonian, Bel-shum-ishkun, Neriglissar had married a 
daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, and we may certainly 
identify him with Nergal-sharezer, the Rab-mag or 
Babylonian general who was present at the siege of 
Jerusalem.’ A striking proof that Neriglissar enjoyed 

1 See above, pp. 51 ff. 2 See above, pp. 24 ff., 58. 

3 For a discussion of the temples in Babylon, which Nebuchadnezzar in 
great part rebuilt, see above, pp. 61 ff. His building activity in other cities 
is attested by his foundation-records ; cf. Langdon, “ Neubab. Konigsin- 
schriften,” pp. 70 ff. 

4 Cf. Abydenus, in Eusebius, 11 Cbron. lib. 1.,” erl. Sehoene, Col. 89 f., or 
Muller, “Fragm. Hist. Cnee.,” IV., p. 284, which may perhaps reproduce 
a statement of Berossus ; see Be van, “ House of Seleucus,” I., p. 247- 

[> According to Berossus he reigned &v6fxus teal aatAyws (cf. Josephus c. 
Apion. 1., 20, in Muller, op. cit ., p. 507). 

6 Evidence that he owed his election to the priestly party may be seen 
in the approval accorded him by Nabonidus ; cf. Nab. Stele, Col. IV., 
11. 24 ff. (Langdon, i( Neubab. Konigsinschriften,” p. 276 f.). 

7 Jer. xxxix.y 8, 18. 



THE LATER EMPIRE 


281 


high military rank in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign has 
recently been obtained in a letter from Erech, which 
was written by a captain in charge of a body, of troops 
stationed in the neighbourhood of that city . 1 The date 
of the letter is certain, since the captain refers to soldiers 
on the roll of Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar ; and 
incidentally it gives us a glimpse of the unsatisfactory 
condition of the Babylonian army during Nebuchad- 
nezzar’s closing years. The captain is anxious that the 
depleted state of his company, and the measures he con- 
templates in order to fill its ranks, should not be known 
to Gubaru, who exercised a high command in Nebu- 
chadnezzar’s army. It is possible that we may identify 
this general with the governor of Gutium, who played 
so prominent a part in the Persian conquest. Knowing, 
as he doubtless did, the unsatisfactory condition of his 
country’s forces, he may perhaps have regarded the task 
of opposing the invaders as quite beyond their powers . 2 

Neriglissar’s death, less than four years after his 
accession, must certainly have been the death-blow to 
any hopes his generals may have entertained of placing 
the country’s military organization and defence upon a 
sound footing. For his son was little more than a child, 
and after nine months’ reign the priestly party at the 
capital succeeded in deposing him in favour of' one of 
their own number, Nabonidus, a man of priestly descent 3 
and thoroughly imbued with the traditions of the 
hierarchy. The new king carried on Nebuchadnezzar’s 
tradition of temple-reconstruction with enthusiasm, but 
he had none of his great predecessor’s military aptitude. 
To his own priestly detachment he added the unpractical 
character of the archaeologist, loving to occupy himself 
in investigating the past history of ’the temples he 
rebuilt, in place of controlling his country’s administra- 
tion. The bent of his mind is well reflected in the 
account he has left, us of the dedication of his daughter, 
Bel-shalti-Nannar, as head of the college of votaries 
attached to the Moon-temple at Ur . 4 It is clear that 

1 Cf. Sclieil, “ Rev. d’Assyr.,” XI., No. iv. (l!tl I), pp. 1C5 ff. 

* See below, p. 28,‘b 

8 Cf. Dhornie, “ Revue Hihlique,” pp. 131 ff. 

4 Cf. Dhorme, tf Rev. d’Assyr./’ XI., No. iii. ^11)14), pp. 105 ff. A 



282 f HISTORY OF BABYLON 

* this act and the accompanying ceremonial interested 
him far more than the education of his son ; and any 
military aptitude Belshazzar may have developed was 
certainly not fostered by his father or his father’s Mends. 
It was only when the enemy was at the frontier that 
the king must have realized his own fatuity. 

Thus with the accession of Nabonidus the close of 
Babylon’s last period of greatness is in sight. But the 
empire did not crumble of its own accord, for in one of 
his foundation-records the king boasts that the whole 
of Mesopotamia and the West, as far as Gaza on 
the Egyptian border, continued to acknowledge his 
authority. 1 It r required pressure from without to 
shatter the decaying empire, which from the first 
must have owed its success in no small measure to the 
friendly and protective attitude of Media. When that 
essential support was no longer forthcoming, it lay at 
the mercy of the new power before*' which Media 
herself had already gone down. 

The Persian kingdom of Cyrus, rising on a new 
wave of the 'Indo-European migration, had had little 
difficulty in absorbing that of the Medes. 2 Five years 
after the accession of Nabonidus, Cyrus had deposed 
Astyages, and, uniting his own followers from the south 
of Iran with their Median kinsfolk, he proceeded to 
deal with Crcesus of Lydia. Under her last king, the 
successor of Aly&ttes, the power of Lydia had risen to 
its greatest height, and the fame of Croesus’ wealth had 
attracted many of the more cultured Greeks to his court 
at Sardis. But when Cyrus made himself master of the 
Median empire, Croesus began to fear his growing 
power. In 547 b.c. he fought an indecisive battle with 

duplicate account of the dedication will appear in Prof. Clay's forthcoming 
“ Miscellaneous Inscriptions in the Yale Babylonian Collection," No. 45. 

1 See his cylinder in the British Museum, 82-7-4, 1025, recording his 
restoration of the temples in Harran and Sippar, Col. L, 11. 38 ff. ; cf. 
Langdon, fr Neubab. Kdnigginschriften,” p. 220 r. 

2 Though Cyrus was at first merely king of Anshan in Elam, with Susa 
as his capital, he was undoubtedly of Aryan aescent. The rise of the southern 
or Persian group of the Iranians coincided with the westward expansion of 
the Median empire, and the fusion of the two branches may well have been 
fostered by disaffection in the north, due to the favour shown by the Median 
kings to their Scythian subjects. This would in great measure account for 
the ease with which Cyrus possessed himself of the Median empire; cf. 
Hogarth, “The Ancient East," pp. 159 ff. 




I r \ K I 1 1 ( I \\ I ( 1 1 \ I > \ I 1 « i \ t \ I I \ I * I K ( > I \ \r,n\ I hi ^ k II 1 k Kl \< . I < 1 

I H l hi- I I \ I mi \s i \ \ ( ,i s i:\ ( \ ki s | ' i \,. u, i, ,,1 

II I \ K I | * ( | \ \ I ( 1 1 \ I ) \ I ! ( ) N i \ I I M > } k ( > I ( \ R 1 ^ K 1 < < I R I » I \ < . ill"' 

I \ l k\ IN 1 1 » I : \ l : \ 1 i > \ • \\ i I n ( * l ' I i: \ I l I l \ \ n \\ I I H< >1 I I l Ml I I 

i / ’ . 1 \ . U I* * 





THE LATER EMPIRE 


283 


the Persians at Pteria in Cappadocia, near the site of 
the old Hittite capital, and he then retreated on Sardis. 
Here he sent for assistance to Sparta, Egypt and 
Babylon. But Cyrus did not delay before renewing his 
attack, and he appeared unexpectedly before the capital. 
The Lydian army was now signally defeated ; Sardis, 
in which Croesus had taken refuge, was captured after 
3 siege, and the Lydian empire brought to an end. 
Cyrus was then free to turn his attention to Babylon. 

If we should be right in identifying Gobryas or 
Gubaru, the governor of Gutium, with the Babylonian 
general of that name, who had held high position under 
Nebuchadnezzar, 1 we may trace the speed and e9.se of the 
Persian conquest of Babylonia directly ‘to his action in 
espousing the cause of the invader. Foreseeing that the 
only hope for his country lay in its speedy submission, he 
may have considered that he would be acting in its best 
interests if he? did not oppose its incorporation within 
the Persian empire, but rendered the revolution so far 
as possible a peaceful one. That would explain the 
action of Cyrus in entrusting the invasiorf largely to his 
hands ; and the subsequent revolt of Sippar is the more 
easilyaccounted for if a Babylonian general with Gubaru’s 
reputation had appeared as the envoy of the Persian 
king. In any case we must assume that a large section 
of the Akkadian population was of that way of thinking, 

3 uite apart from the opposition to hirnself that Naboni- 
u« had aroused in the priestly party of the capital. 

The defence of the country was entrusted by Nabo- 
nidus to his son Belshazzar, who met the advancing 
Persians at Opis, where he was defeated ; and, as often 
as he attempted to rally his forces, they were again 
dispersed.* Sippar then opened its gates without 
fighting, Nabonidus fled, and Gubaru advancing on the 
capital secured its peaceful surrender. The native 
chronicler of these events records that, during the early 
days of the Persian occupation of the city, the shields 
of Gutium surrounded the doors of E-sagila, so that 
no man’s spear entered the sacred shrines and no 


1 See above, p. 281. .... ,, ~ , 

* See the “ Nabonidus-Cyrus Chronicle, Itov., Col. III., 11. 12 n. ; and 
op. Hageu, “Beitr. zur Assyr.,” II., p. 222 f. 



284 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

military standard was brought in . 1 The record gains 
fresh meaning if we may assume that the governor 
of Gutium was himself of native origin and a former 
general of the Babylonian army. On the third day of 
the following month Cyrus made his state entry into 
the capital, being received by all classes, and especially 
by the priesthood and the nobles, as a liberator. He 
appointed Gubaru his governor of Babylon, and the 
latter appears to have stamped out further resistance 
by pursuing Belshazzar and putting him to death . 2 
Nabonidus had already been taken, when the capital 
surrendered. 

It is perhaps remarkable that the native priesthood, 
from whose ranks Nabonidus himself had sprung, should 
have welcomed the Persian king as their country’s 
deliverer, whose victory had been brought about by 
Marduk, the national god. But, after securing the 
secular control. Nabonidus had given free rein to his 
priestly ambition, and, as a consequence, had estranged 
his own party. His imagination may have been fired by 
some ill-advis&d scheme of centralizing worship ; but, 
whatever his motive, the king had collected many of 
the cult-images throughout the country into the capital, 
little recking that he thereby tore the gods from their 
ancient habitations. By restoring the gods to their 
local shrines, Cyrus gained in popularity, and completely 
won over the priesthood, by far the most powerful 
political section of the community . 3 Thus it happened 
that Babylon made no further struggle to retain her 
freedom, and the whole of the territory she had enjoyed 
was incorporated without resistance in the Persian 
empire. 

With the permanent loss of Babylon’s independence, 
the period covered by this history draws to an end. 
The epoch forms a convenient stopping-place ; but, 
unlike the fall of the Assyrian empire, her conquest 
made but little difference to the life and activities of 

1 Cf. “Nak-Oyr. Clirou.,” Col. III., 11. 1(1 ff. 

2 The passage in the Chronicle, which appears to record this act on 
Gubaru’s part (Col. 111., 1. 22 f.), is broken and its reading is not certain ; 
but the fact that the next entry relates to a period of national mourning in 
Akkad is in favour of the interpretation suggested. 

3 Cf. “Nab. -Cyr. Chron.,” Col. III., 11. 18 if. 



THE LATER EMPIRE 285 

the population as a whole. It may therefore be per- 
missible to glance ahead a little, and note her subsequent 
fortunes as a subject province, under the foreign domi- 
nation of the powers which succeeded one another in 
the rule of that region of Western Asia. The tran- 
quillity of the country under Cyrus formed a striking 
contrast to the unrest and intrigue which characterized 
its attitude under Assyrian rule ; and this was due to 
the fact that the policy he inaugurated in the provinces 
of his empire was a complete reversal of Assyrian 
methods. For the nationality of each conquered race 
was respected, and it was encouraged to retain its own 
religion and its laws and customs. Hence JJaby Ion’s 
commercial life and prosperity suffered' no interruption 
in consequence of the change in her political status. 
Taxation was not materially increased, and little was 
altered beyond the name and title of the reigning king 
in the dates upon commercial and legal documents. 1 

This state of things would doubtless have continued, 
had not the authority of the Persian empire itself been 
rudely shaken during the reign of Camoyses, Cyrus’ 
son and successor. The conquest of Egypt and its 
incorporation as an integral part of the Acluemenian 
empire, to which he directed his main energies, were 
achieved after the battle of Pelusium and the fall 
of Memphis. Put when attempting to extend his 
sway over Nubia in the south, he received news of 
revolt in Persia. Pefore his departure for Egypt 
he had murdered his brother Bardiya, known to the 
Greeks as Smerdis. The murder had been kept a 
secret, and the revolt against the absent king was now 
headed by a Magian, named Gaumata, who gave him- 
self out as the missing Smerdis ancf the true heir to 
the throne. 2 Cambyses made preparations to repress 
the revolt, but died on his return journey in Syria in 
522. The death. of the king gave a fresh impetus to 
the forces of rebellion, which now began to spread 
through the provinces of the Persian empire. But 

1 The enormous number of these that have been recovered attest the 
continued prosperity of the country. 

2 Of. King and Thompson, “ Sculptures and Inscription of Darius/’ 
pp. 6 IF. 



386* History of babylon 

Gaumata, the Persian rebel, soon met his fate. For 
after Cambyses’ death, the Persian army was led back 
by Darius, a prince of the same house as Cyrus and 
his son ; Gaumata was surprised and murdered, and 
Darius firmly established on the throne. Darius con- 
tinued to act with extraordinary energy, and in the 
course of a single year succeeded in quelling the 
rebellions in Babylon and in the various provinces. 1 
On the rock-face of Behistun in Persia, on the road 
from Babylon to Ecbatana, he has left us sculptured 
portraits of himself* and the rebel leaders he subdued. 
The latter include Nidintu-Bcl and Arakha, the two 
pretenders to the Babylonian throne.* 

The sieges of Babylon by Darius mark the beginning 
of the city’s decay. Her defences had not been seriously 
impaired by Cyrus, but they now suffered considerably. 
The city was again restless during Darius’ closing years, 3 
and further damage was done to it in' the reign of 
Xerxes, when the Babylonians made their last bids for 
independence. 4 For Xerxes is said not only to have 
disman tled the walls, but to have plundered and 
destroyed the great temple of Marduk itself. Large 
areas in the city, which had been a wonder of the 
nations, now began to lie permanently in ruins. Babylon 
entered on a new phase in 331 b.c., when the long 
struggle between Greece and Persia was ended by the 

1 Cf. Weissbach, “Zeits. fur Deutsch. Morgenland. GesellschafV* 
Bd. LXTI. (1908), pp. 031 ff. The majority of the national revolts were 
probably suppressed during the accession-year of Darius and the early part of 
his first year. The later revolts of Susiania and Scythia also gave little 
difficulty ; Weissbach (ib., p. 641) suggests a restoration of the Persian text 
of the Behistun Inscription which would place them in the fourth and fifth 
year of Darius’ reign. 

2 See King and Thompson, op. cit ., Plates iii., xv. and xvi. 

3 It was only towards the end of Darius’ reign, after the Egyptian revolt, 
that we have evidence pointing to a renewal of Babylonian unrest (see below, 
n. 4). The fear inspired by Darius on his accession was evidently felt 
throughout his Asiatic provinces, and it was the revolt of Egypt, not Asia, 
that checked his activities against the Greeks. 

4 For a list of documents dated in the brief reigns of Bel-simanni, 
Shamash-erba, and two other Babylonian usurpers of this period, see 
Weissbach, op, cit., p. 644. The extraordinary variants in writing the 
Babylonian form of Xerxes’ name show the difficulty the Babylonians had 
in pronouncing* it ; but Akshimakshu can hardly be regarded as such a 
variant, and may well be that of a rebel who secured a brief period of power 
(cf. also Boissier, iS Orient. Lit.-Zeit.,” 1913, p. 390). On the evidence of 
the proper names occurring in the contracts, he and the others are all to be 
placed in the reign of Xerxes or in the last years of Darius. 



/vVv 



[ MTRKSMON 


>k ni- o i; \i:\ lom \ rv \m> i'Kimw ni.iM'i'K ^kaia 

M ns , .Y<m. t ■ jq. Sijijn. hijjt- 





THE LATER EMPIRE 387 

defeat of Darius III. at Gaugamela. For Susa and 
Babylon submitted to Alexander, who on proclaiming 
himself King of Asia, took Babylon as his capital. We 
may picture him gazing on the city’s great buildings, 
many of which now lay ruined and deserted. Like 
Cyrus before him, he sacrificed to Babylon’s gods ; and 
he is said to have wished to restore E-sagila, Marduk’s 
great temple, but to have given up the idea, as it would 
have taken ten thousand men more than two months 
to remove the rubbish from the ruins. But he seems 
to have made some attempt in that direction, since a 
tablet has been found, dated in his sixth year, which 
records a payment of ten manehs of silver for “ clearing 
away the dust of E-sagila.” 1 * * 

While the old buildings decayed, some new ones 
arose in their place, including a Greek theatre for the 
use of the large Greek colony. a Many of the Babylonians 
themselves adopted Greek names and fashions, but the 
more conservative elements, particularly among the 
priesthood, continued to retain their own separate life and 
customs. In the year 270 b.c. we have a record that 
Antiochus Soter restored the temples of NabCi and 
Marduk at Babylon and Borsippa, 8 and the recent diggings 
at Erech have shown that the old temple in that city 
retained its ancient cult under a new name. 4 * * * In the 
second century we know that, in a corner of the great 
temple at Babylon, Marduk and the. God of Heaven 
were worshipped as a two-fold deity under the name 
of Anna- Bel ; and we hear of priests attached to one 

1 Cf. Oppert, “Comptes rendus,” 1800, pp. 414 ff. 

8 See above, p. 83, Fig. 31, J. The theatre was built of mud-brick ; for 
the pillars and their bases a sort of concrete was employed, made of burnt- 
brick rubble and gypsum mortar, washed over with white plaster. 

8 Cf. Rawlinson, “Cun. Inscr. West. Asia,” V., pi. 68. 

4 In contract-tablets from the site, dating from the third and second 
centuries TS.C., the old temple E-anna is always referred to under the name 

Rlt*r6sh, “ Chief Temple,” or “Chief Building” (cf. Clay, “Babylonian 

Records in the Library of J. Pierpont Morgan,” Pt. II., 1913). Prof. Clay 
has recently sent me a transcript of a very interesting building-inscription 

from the same site, drawn up in the year 244 b.c., which will appear as No. 52 
in his forthcoming “Miscellaneous Inscriptions.” It records the rebuilding 
of Blt-r5sh by a certain Anu-uballit, the second prefect (shantl) of Erech, who 
also bore the Greek name NUaptcos (Nilcikarku&u, Nikarkum ) ; it was clearly 
a privilege to bear a Greek name, as he tells us he was given his by 

u Antiochus, king of the lands.” live text furnishes additional evidence of 
the survival of the literary language of Babylon for official records, and of 
the conservatism of the religious cult. 



288 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

of Babylon’s old shrines as late as the year 29 B.e. 
Services in honour of the later forms of the Babylonian 
gods were probably continued into the Christian era. 

The life of the ancient city naturally flickered longest 
around the ruined temples and seats of worship. On 
the secular side, as a commercial centre, she was then 
but a ghost of her former self. Her real decay had set 
in when Seleucus, after securing the satrapy of Babylon 
on Alexander’s death, had recognized the greater ad- 
vantages offered by the Tigris for maritime communica- 
tion. On the foundation of Seleucia, Babylon as a city 
began rapidly to decay. Deserted at first by the official 
classes, followed later by the merchants, she decreased 
in importance- as her rival grew. Thus it was by a 
gradual and purely economic process, and through no 
sudden blow, that Babylon slowly bled to death. 



CHAPTER X 


C5RKECE, * PALESTINE AND BABYLON : AN ESTIMATE OF 
CULTURAL INFLUENCE 

D URING the Persian and Hellenistic periods 
Babylon exerted an influence upon c’ontem- 
porary races of which we may trace some sur- 
vivals in the civilization of the modern world. She was 
the mother of astronomy, and the twelve divisions on 
the dial of our blocks and watches were ultimately de- 
rived, through Greek channels, from her ancient system 
of time-division. It was under the Neo-Baby Ionian 
kings that the Hebrew race first came into close contact 
with her culture, and there can be no doubt that the 
Jews, in the time of their captivity, renewed their interest 
in her mythology when they found it presented some 
parallels to their own. But in the course of this history 
it has been shown that, during far earlier periods, the 
civilization of Babylon had penetrated throughout a 
great part of Western Asia. It is admitted that, as a 
result of her westward expansion at the time of the First 
Dynasty, her culture had spread during subsequent 
periods to the Mediterranean coast-lands, and had 
moulded to some extent the development of those 
peoples with whom it came in contact: And since the 
religious element dominated her own activities in a 
greater measure than was the case with most other 
races of antiquity,, it has been urged that many features 
in Hebrew religion and in Greek mythology can only 
be rightly explained by Babylonian beliefs in which they 
had their origin. It is the purpose of this chapter to 
examine a theory of Babylon's external influence, which 
has been propagated by a school of writers and has 
determined the direction of much recent research. 

u 



290 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


It is scarcely necessary to insist on the manner in 
which material drawn from Babylonian and Assyrian 
sources has helped to elucidate points in the political 
and religious history of Israel. Scarcely less striking, 
though not so numerous, are the echoes from Babylonian 
legends which have long been recognized as existing in 
Greek mythology. The best known example of direct 
borrowing is undoubtedly the myth of Adonis and' 
Aphrodite, the main features of which correspond closely 
to the Babylonian legend of Tammuz and Ishtar. In 
this case not only the myth, but the accompanying 
festival and rites were also borrowed, passing to Greece 
by way t of Byblos on the Syrian coast and Paphos in 
Cyprus, both 'centres of Astarte worship . 1 Another 
Greek legend, obviously of Babylonian origin, is that of 
Acta*on, who is clearly to be identified with the 
shepherd, loved by Ishtar and changed by her into a 
leopard, so that he was hunted and kil'lcd by his own 
hounds . 2 

Some parallels have also long been pointed out 
between the* national heroes Heracles and Gilgamesh. 
It is true that most races of antiquity possess stories of 
national heroes of superhuman strength and power, but 
there are cert ain features in the traditions concerning 
Heracles which may have some ultimate connexion 
with the Gilgamesh cycle of legends . 3 Hess convincing 
is the analogy which has been suggested between Icarus 
and Etana, the Babylonian hero or demi-god, who suc- 
ceeded in dying to the highest heaven only to fall 

1 The cult of Adonis travelled to Greece not later than the seventh 

century, u.c., and there is evidence that his rites were subsequently celebrated 
both in Argos and in Attica ; see Frazer, “ Adonis, Attis, Osiris/’ 1., pp. 13 ff., 
22(i f. For the Sumerian origin of the legend, see Zimmern, “ Sumerisch- 
(F)?3) IliS<lie lamuzlieAer ” ail(1 Fang-don, “Tammuz and Ishtar’ 

2 though Actseon was changed into a stag by Artemis, the main features 

of the Babylonian myth, viz . the angry goddess, the changing of the hero 
into a beast, and his death due to his own hounds, persist in the various 
versions of the Greek story. 4 ' 

Apart from other detailed resemblances, the labours and sufferings to 
which Heracles is exposed through Hera’s hatred, a feature common to all 
forms of the Greek legend, find a close parallel in the persecution and trial 
of Gilgamesh by Ishtar. lor the most recent discussion of the possible 
influence of the Gilgamesh legends on Hebrew traditions, see the additional 
note on “The mythical element in the Story of Samson,” in Prof. Burney’s 
forthcoming volume on “Judges,” in the “Oxford Church Biblical 
Commentary.” 



CULTURAL INFLUENCE 291 

headlong to the earth. For in Etana’s case there is no 
question of human flight : he was carried to heaven by 
his friend the Eagle, to whose wings he clung while they 
mounted to heaven’s gates. Hut the examples already 
referred to may suffice to illustrate the way in which it 
has long been agreed that Babylonian mythology may 
.have left its impress on that of Greece. 

. But the views now held by a considerable body of 
scholars .suggest a much broader extension of Baby- 
lonian influence than is implied by a series of isolated 
and fortuitous connexions ; and, as the character of tins 
influence is cx hypolhcsi astronomical, any attempt to 
define its limits with precision is a iqatter ®f some 
difficulty. For it will be obvious that, if we may 
assume an astronomical basis or background to any two 
mythologies, we at once detect a great number of 
common features the existence of which we should not 
otherwise have’suspected. And the reason is not far to 
seek ; for the astronomical phenomena with which we 
go to work are necessarily restricted in number, and 
they have to do duty many times over as a background 
in each system . 1 In spite of this disadvantage, which is 
inherent in their theory, Winckler and his school have 
rendered good service in working out the general rela- 
tionship which was believed by the Babylonians to exist 
between the heavenly bodies and the earth . 2 lie has 
shown sound reasons for assuming th’at, according to 
the tenets of Babylonian astrology, events and institu- 
tions on earth were in a certain sense copies of heavenly 
prototypes. 

It is well known that the Babylonians, like the 
Hebrews, conceived the universe as consisting of three 
parts : the heaven above, the earth beneath, and the 
waters under the earth. The Babylonians gradually 
elaborated this conception of the universe, and traced 
in the heavens a ’parallel to the threefold division of 
earth, separating the universe into a heavenly and an 
earthly world. The earthly universe consisted as before 

1 It is precisely this laxity of application, and the consequent temptation 
to abuse it, that have led many of their critics to deny all value to the 
researches of the late Hugo Winckler and his followers. 

2 For the chief literature in which their astral theory is expounded, see 
below, p. n. 3. 



392 irrSTORY OF BABYLON 

of three divisions, that is to say the heaven (limited to 
the air or atmosphere above the earth), the earth itself, 
and the waters beneath it. Those corresponded in the 
heavenly world to the Northern heaven, the Zodiac, 
and the Southern heaven or heavenly ocean. By the 
later Babylonian period the greater gods had long be- 
come identified with the planets, and the lesser gods 
with the fixed stars, each deity having his special house 
or star in heaven in addition to his temple on earth. 
This idea appears to have been carried still further by 
the later Greek astrologers, by whom lands and cities 
in addition to temples were thought to have their 
cosmic .counterparts . 1 But even for the Babylonians 
the moving stars were not merely symbols serving as 
interpreters to men of the divine will ; their movements 
were the actual cause of events on earth. To use an 
apposite simile of Winckler, heaven was believed to be 
related to earth much as a moving object seen in a 
mirror was related to its reflection . 2 

In order to illustrate the way in which these astral 
ideas are said' to have supplied material to Greek mytho- 
logy, a test instance may be selected, the suggested 
explanation of which involves one of the essential 
features of Winckler’s astral system as he eventually 
elaborated it . 3 We will take the story of the Golden 

1 On this subject, cf. Oumont, “ La plus ancienne geographic astrologique ** 
in “ Klio,” IX. (1909>, Hft. 3, pp. 263 ff. 

2 A striking instance of the way in which this astral conception of the 
universe, as current at any rate among the later school of Babylonian 
astrologers, has left its imprint on Hebrew literature may be seen in 
Is. xxvii., 1, an eschatological prophecy of post-exilic date, where the imagery 
is clearly drawn from Babylonian sources. The “ winding *’ or “crooked 
serpent’* of the passage is the constellation Draco, which winds about the 
North Pole; Serpens, a little to the north of the ecliptic, is “ the fugitive 
serpent ” ; while Hyd^a, the water-snake, dwelling in the southern heaven 
or heavenly ocean, is “ the dragon that is in the sea. ’* ' The passage was first 
explained in this way by Burney, “Journ. Theol. Stud./* Xl. (1910), 
pp. 443 ff. 

8 Stucken’s “ Astralmythen ” (1896-1907) appears to have strongly 
influenced Winckler, whose theory attracted general attention on its exposi- 
tion in the (< Preussische Jahrbiicher” in 1901 (Bd. 104, pp. 224 ff.) and in 
“ Himmels- und Weltenbild der Babylonier als Grundlage der Weltanschauung 
und Mythologie aller Volker,” in “ Der alte Orient,*’ III., 2-3. He elaborated 
special points in his “ Altorientalische Forsch ungen ” (1902-1905) ; see also 
Winckler and Jeremias, “ Im Kampfe um den alten Orient,** Leipzig, 1907-8. 
For a defence of the astronomical assumptions of the theory, see especially 
Jeremias, “ Das Alter der babylonischen Astronomie *’ (op. cvt. y Hft. 3, 1908) ; 
and cf. Weidner, “Orient. Lit.-Zeit.” 1911, Col. 346 ff., and 1913, Nos. 1 
and 2 (Sonderabdruck, 16 pp.) ; see further, pp. 304, 308. 









Lamb of Atreus and Thyestes, which is introduced by 
Euripides into one of the choruses in his Electra} 
According to the story, which is referred to, but not 
explicitly told, by Euripides, the Lamb with the Golden 
Fleece was brought by Pan to Atreus, and was regarded 
by the Argives as a sign that he was the true king. 
But his brother Thyestes, with the help of Atreus’ wife, 
stole it and claimed to be king ; so strife ensued, good 
was turned to evil, and the stars were shaken in their 
courses. It is curious that the theft of the Lamb 
should have such a special effect upon the heavens and 
the weather, for this is definitely stated in the second 
strophe and antistrophe of the chorus. 2 Though details 
are obscure, it is clear that we here have a legend with 
strongly marked astrological elements. The theft of 
the Lamb changes the sun’s course, and from other lines 
in the chorus we gather that the alteration led to the 
present climatic conditions of the world, the rain- 
clouds flying northward and leaving “the seats of 
Ammon” — that is, the Libyan desert — parched and 
dewless. 

In its original form the legend may well have been 
a story of the First Sin, after which the world was 
changed to its present state, both moral and atmo- 
spheric.® There is definite evidence that the Golden 
Lamb was identified with the constellation Aries ; and 
since Babylon was admittedly the home of astrology, it 
is not an improbable suggestion, in spite of the refer- 
ence to Ammon, that we should regard it as one of the 
lost legends of Babylon. According to Winckler’s 
theory of the Babylonian religion, we should go further, 
and trace the origin of the legend to a convulsion in 
Babylonian thought which took place in the ninth and 
eighth centuries b.c. At this period, it is asserted, the 
sun at the vernal equinox was moving from the con- 
stellation Taurus into Aries. The bull, according to 
the theory, was identified with Marduk, the god of 

} Winckler’s explanation of the passage is cited by Prof. Gilbert Murray in 
his “ Electra of Euripides/' p. 91 f., and by Prof. Burrows in his “ Discoveries 
in Crete/' p. 133, 

* LI. 728 ff. 

8 Cf. Murray, op, cit.> p. 91. 



294 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

Babylon , 1 2 and all the time he was yielding his place to 
the Ram, Babylon was declining before the power of 
Assyria. The disorganization of the calendar and the 
seasons, due to the imperfect method of time-reckoning 
in vogue, was associated with this event, giving an 
impetus to a fresh birth of legends, one of which has 
found its way in a Greek dress into this chorus of 
Euripides. Or, as it has been put rather differently, the 
story is a piece of Babylonian astronomy misunderstood. 

The theory underlying this interpretation of the 
legend is based on the axiom that the Babylonian 
religion was essentially a star-worship, and that behind 
every department of the national literature, secular as 
well as religious, lay the same astral conception of the 
universe. Before treating the theory in greater detail, 
it may be well to ascertain how far the history of the 
country substantiates this view. In the earliest period 
of which we have recovered material reifiains there can 
be no doubt that image-worship formed a characteristic 
feature of the Babylonian religious system, though we 
have no meafis of tracing its gradual evolution out of 
the fetish and stock-and-stone worship which neces- 
sarily preceded it . 3 * * * * The extraneous civilization, which 
the Sumerians introduced, most probably included cult- 
images of their gods, and these may well have been 
already anthropomorphic. Fashioned in the god’s 
form, the image vVas believed to enshrine his presence, 
and for the Babylonians of all periods it never lost this 
animistic character. 

A tribal or city-god, in his earliest stage of develop- 
ment, was doubtless wholly identified with his cult- 
image. No more than one image of each was wor- 
shipped, and the idea of a god’s existence'apart from this 
visible form must have been of gradual growth . 8 The 


1 The hall was actually associated with Adad, »the Weather-god, and 
naturally symbolized the Clod of Thunder. 

2 Of. Taylor, “ Primitive Culture,” II., pp. 14.4 ff. 

3 It is possible to conjecture circumstances which would have tended to 

encourage speculation in that direction. The capture and deportation of 
a god, if followed by the substitution of another figure in its place and the 

subsequent recovery of the original, would have led to the incorporation of 

two figures within one shrine. And a king’s ambition to rebuild or beautify 

a temple might have been extended to the image itself, if the latter had 

suffered damage or decay. 



CULTURAL INFLUENCE 


295 


misfortunes of the material image, especially if unaccom- 
panied by national disaster, would have fostered a belief 
in the god’s existence apart from his visible body of wood 
or stone. And such a belief eventually developed into 
the Babylonian conception of a heavenly division of the 
universe, in which the great gods had their dwelling, 
making their presence manifest to men in the stars and 
planets that moved across the sky. But this develop- 
ment marked a great advance upon pure image- worship. 




THE WEATHEB-GOD AND TWO GODDESSES FROM AN ASSYRIAN BAS-RELIEF. 

Tho goddesses woar the horned headdresses of Babylonian deities, and, as they 
are represented being carried by soldiers, they had probably been takon from 
a captui jd Babylonian town. 

[After Layard.] 

» 

<k 

and undoubtedly followed the growth of a pantheon out 
of a collection of separate and detached city-gods. We 
have no means of dating the association of some of the 
greater gods with natural forces. It would seem that, 
in the earlier Sumerian period, religious centres in the 
country were already associated with lunar and solar 
cults and with other divisions of nature-worship. But 
it is quite certain that, during all subsequent stages of 
Babylonian history, the divine image never degenerated 


S96 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

■ . *1 

into a mere symbol of divinity. Without consciously 
postulating a theory in explanation of his belief, the 
Babylonian found no difficulty in reconciling a localiza- 
tion of the divine person with his presence at other 
cult centres and ultimately with a separate life in the 
heavenly sphere. 

That this was actually the case is proved by a number 
of historical examples. With the rise of Babylon we 
may note the important part which the actual ijmage of 
Marduk played in each coronation 
ceremony and in the renewal of the 
king’s oath at every subsequent Feast 
of the New Year ; the hands of no 
other image than that in E-sagila 
would serve for the king to grasp. 
In Hammurabi’s reign we see the 
Babylonian’s conception of his visible 
gods reflected in his 1 2 3 * * * * treatment of 
foreign images . 1 The international 
exchange of deities in the fourteenth 
and thirteenth centuries has already 
been referred to, a and the recovery 
of captured images was always re- 
corded with enthusiasm . 8 For the 
images themselves constituted a 
nation’s chief weapon of offence, and 
in * there was always the chance that, if 
[After Layard.] properly treated by their captors, they 
might transfer their influence to the 
other side. This close connexion between the god and 
his image survived into the Neo-Babylonian period, 

1 It was not merely %s booty, but in order to gain their tavour, that Sin- 
idinnam and his army carried off certain Elamite goddesses to their own land, 
conveying them carefully as in their shrines ; and on the restoration of the 
images to Elam the goddesses themselves returned thither (cf. u Letters of 
Hammurabi/’ III., pp. 6 ff.). It was in the same spirij that Nebuchadnezzar 1. 
gave sanctuary to tne refugee priests from Elam, and introduced their god 
Ria into Babylon (see above, p. 253 f.). 

2 See above, pp. 221 f., 240. 

3 Agum-kakrime’s recovery of the images of Marduk and ^arpanitum is 

an instance in point (see above, pp. 210, 218). But perhaps the most striking 

example is Ashur bani- pal's recovery of Nana’s image from Susa, which had 

been carried off from Erech sixteen hundred and thirty-five years before (see 

above, p. 113). He probably found her installed in her Susian shrine, perhaps 

within the temple of Shushinak, the national god. 







OTOTORAL INFLUENCE 297 

and Nabonidus’ offence in the eyes of the priesthood 
was simply that he ignored the feeling. Historical 
evidence thus suggests that the astral aspect of divinity 
in Babylonia was not an original feature of its religious 
system, and that it was never adopted to the exclusion 
of more primitive ideas. 

A similar result follows if we examine the relation 
of a Babylonian deity to his sculptured emblem, by 
means of which his authority or presence could in 
certain circumstances be secured or indicated. The 
origin of such emblems was not astrological, nor is it 
to be sought in liver-augury: they were not derived 
from fancied resemblances to animals or objects, pre- 
sented either by constellations in heaven, or by mark- 
ings on the liver of a victim. It is clear that they arose 
in the first instance from the characters or attributes 
assumed by the gods in the mythology ; their transfer- 
ence to constellations was a secondary process, and their 
detection in liver-markings resulted, not in their own 
origin but in that of the omen. 1 In the earliest period 
the emblem of a city-god might symbolize his city’s 
power, 8 and those of other deities expressed some 
quality in the character of their possessor, or were 
drawn from a weapon, object or animal with which 
they 'tfere associated in tradition. 3 

Another class of images were the animal forms, also 
drawn largely from the mythology, tfhich adorned the 
earlier temples and were reproduced in enamelled brick- 
work on secular buildings by the Neo-Babylonian kings. 
Most qf these, in the later as in the earlier periods, were 
placed near temple-entrances, and where stone was so 
plentiful that it could be used in bulk in the structure 

1 The Spear-head of Marduk was a fit emblem for the slayer of 
Tiamat, the demon of chaos, and the Stilus, or Wedge, of Nabti suits the 
god of writing and architecture. The emblems of some of the great nature- 
gods were naturally astrological, such as the Lightning-fork of Adad, and the 
lunar and solar disks for the Moon -god and Sun-god ; but this character was 
not shared by the Majority of the emblems. 

2 The emblem of Niugirsu of Lagash, for example, was a lion-headed 
eagle grasping lions ; cf, ** Sumer and Akkad,” p. 100. 

8 Some divine emblems were purely animal, such as the Dog of Gula, the 
Walking Bird of Bau, and the Scorpion of Ishkhara. It may be added that 
in these cases there is nothing to indicate a totemistic origin, and the 
analogy of the Goat-fish of Enki or Ea, the god of the Deep, suggests that 
they are not to be traced beyond the mythological stage. 



298 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


of buildings, the doorways themselves were carved in 
the same way. That animal forms were employed to 
symbolize sound is suggested by the representation of a 
great harp or lvre on a Sumerian-bas-relief, in which 
the figure of a bull surmounting the sound- case is 
evidently intended to suggest the peculiarly deep and 
vibrant tones of the instrument . 1 Moreover, on cylinder- 
seals engraved with the figure of the Sun-god emerging 
from the Eastern Gate of heaven, two lions aje often 
set immediately above the opening doors, and in one 



SUMERIAN UAllP, 

[Aftor Dec. en Chald., pi. 23.] 


specimen the gate-pivots rest upon a second pair 
arranged symmetrically below them . 2 

The symbolisrii of these and similar monsters may 
well have been suggested by the grinding of the heavy 
doors in their stone sockets and the shrieking of their 
bolts . 3 The noises suggested the cries of animals, which, 

1 See Fig. 7<> ; and cp. Heuzey, “Musioue chald<$enne” in the “Rev. 
d’Assyr.," IX., No. iii. (1912), pp. 85 ff. M. Heuzey supports his suggestion 
by quoting a description of a similar instrument of music from a contempo- 
rary text : “The ‘ portico ’ of the lyre was like a bellowing bull.” 

2 ^e p. 209, Fig. 71, and cp. Plate XVI. (No. 89110), opposite p. 192. 

8 Heuzey (be. cit.) cites the following description of the doors set up by 
Gudea in the temple of Ningirsu : “ The doors of cedar- wood, installed in the 



CULTURAL INFLUENCE 299 

in accordance with the tenets of primitive animism, were 
thought to inhabit the doors and gateways and to guard 
them. We may probably trace to this ancestry the 
colossal lions and winged bulls which flanked the door- 
ways of Assyrian and Persian palaces, and, like the 
enamelled monsters of Babylon andPersepolis, continued 
to be reproduced as divine guardians of a building 
after their primitive associations had been forgotten 
or modified . 1 

Archaeological evidence thus supports the view, 
already deduced from historical considerations, that 
astrology did not dominate the religious activities of 



Pig. 71. 


THE GUARDIAN LIONS OF THE EASTERN GATE OF HE WEN. 

[Aftor Heuzey.J 


Babylon. And an examination of the literature points to 
the same conclusion. Magic and divination bulk largely 
in the texts recovered, and in their case there is nothing 
to suggest an underlying astrological element . 2 We 
are the less inclined, therefore, to accept the axiom that 
an astral conception of the universe permeated and 
coloured Babylonian thought to such an extent, that 


gateway, were like the God of Thunder thundering in the heavens ; the bolt 
of the temple of E-ninnu was like a savage dog ; the pivots were like a lion ; 

. . . on the . . ., placed above the doors,, he (Gutkia) caused a young lion 
and a young panther to dwell ’’ (cf. Thureau-Dangin, “ Sum. und Akkad. 
Konigsinsohriften/’ p. 118 f., Col. 2(1, 11. 20 ff.). 

1 Cf. “Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch.," XXXIV. (1012), pp. 27 0 ff. 

2 Our knowledge of Babylonian literature has been derived in great 
measure from Assyrian sources, and, as the civilization of both countries was 
intimately connected, the two branches of the subject will he treated together 
at the close of the third volume of this history. It will then also be possible 
to speak more confidently oil the relative part played by Sumerian and 
Semite in the development of Babylonian law, after the publication of the 
recently discovered Sumerian code (see above, p. 1(»3, n. 2). Incidentally *he 
document will throw light on the extent to which primitive Semitic custom, 
shared possibly by the Hebrews, may have moulded some of the provisions of 
Hammurabi’s Code. 



300 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

not only myths and legends, but even historical events, 
were recorded in terms which reflect the movements of 
the sun, moon and planets and the other phenomena 
of the heavens. If we once grant this assumption, it 
might perhaps have followed, as the astral mythologists 
claim, that the beliefs of the Babylonian star- worshippers 
became the prevailing doctrine of the ancient Bast and 
left their traces broadcast upon the records of antiquity. 
But the original assumption appears to be unsound, and 



WINGED MONSTER ON ENAMELLED FRIEZE AT PERSEPOLIS. 

[Aftor Dieulafoy.] 


the theory can only find support by treating late evidence 
as applicable to all stages of Babylonian history. 

The roots of the theory are placed, in a purely 
imaginary age, where evidence for or against it is lacking. 
Thus the oldest monuments which have been recovered 
upon Babylonian sites are not considered relics of the 
early stages of Babylonian culture . 1 It is asserted that 
in the periods behind them there existed an elaborate 

1 The rude inscriptions from such a mound as F&ra (cf. “ Sumer and Akkad,” 
pp/24 ff.), the site of the city of Shuruppak which is mentioned in the Deluge- 
story, are not regarded as archaic. The shell seals, copper weapons, and 
rough stone necklaces from the graves beneath the city are treated with scant 
attention. All are assigned to a comparatively late stage of development. 




CULTURAL INFLUENCE 301 

and highly developed civilization, lying back in the 
darkness beyond the earliest extant records. In the 
total absence of material evidence, it is no difficult task 
to paint this age in colours which are shared by no other 
early or primitive race in the world’s history. It is 
assumed that war and violence had no existence in 
Babylonia in this prehistoric time. Intellect dominated 
and controlled the passions of the primaeval but highly 
gifted people, and in particular one form of intellectual 
conception based on a scientific knowledge of astronomy. 
It is postulated that a purely astronomical theory of the 
universe lay at the root of their civilization, and 
governed their whole thought and conduct. # This was 
no teaching of a learned priesthood, but was a univer- 
sally held belief which permeated every branch of the 
national and individual life. The theory in its perfect 
and uncorrupted state had perished with the other 
relies of its lfiventors. But it was inherited by the 
Semitic immigrants into Babylonia, and, though em- 
ployed by them in an altered and corrupted form, 
has, it is said, left its traces in the ’ later records. 
In this way the astral mythologist would explain 
the fragmentary character of his data, from which 
he claims to reconstruct the original beliefs in their 
entirety. 

One such belief has been preserved by Seneca, 1 who, 
giving Berossus as his authority, refers to a Chaldean 
theory of a great year, a long cosmical period having, 
like the year, a summer and a winter. The summer is 
marked by a great conflagration produced by the con- 
junction of all the planets in Cancer, and the winter is 
characterized by a universal deluge caused by a similar 
conjunction of all the planets in Capricorn. The idea 
is evidently based on the conception that, as the suc- 
cession of day and night corresponds to the changes of 
the seasons, so the year itself must correspond to greater 
cycles of time. Though Berossus is our earliest authority, 
the doctrine is regarded as a primitive Babylonian one. 
It is further argued that, even in the earliest period, the 
inhabitants of Babylonia conceived the history of the 
world to have been evolved in a series of successive 
1 “Quaest. Natur.," III., W, ed. Haase, p. 236. 



302 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

ages, bearing the same relation to these aeons of the 
world-cycle as the year bore to them. 

The theory of Ages of the World is familiar enough 
from the classical conception, first met with in Hesiod’s 
“ Works and Days ,” 1 which profoundly influenced later 
Greek speculation. There is nothing particularly astral 
about Hesiod’s conception of four ages, distinguished 
by the principal metals and showing progressive 
deterioration. But it is claimed that Hesiod’s ( theory, 
and all parallel conceptions of W orld- Ages, are derived 
from a Babylonian prototype, Hesiod’s Golden Age 
reflecting the general condition of prehistoric Babylonia. 
Assuming a close correspondence between the zodiac 
and the earth in 'early Babylonian thought, it is argued 
that the inhabitants of the country from the earliest 
periods divided the world’s history into ages of about 
two thousand years each, according to the particular 
sign of the zodiac in which the sun stood each year at 
the vernal equinox, when the New Year’s Festival was 
celebrated . 2 Although these ages are never named nor 
mentioned in the inscriptions, they are referred to by 
the astral mythologists as the Ages of the Twins, the 
Bull, and the Ram , 3 from the zodiacal constellations of 
Gemini, Taurus, and Aries. 

This is a vital point of the theory and it postulates 
on the part of the early Babylonians a highly accurate 
knowledge of astrdnomy : it assumes a knowledge of the 
procession of the equinoxes, which could only be based 
on a very rigid system of astronomical observation and 
record . 4 But the ancient Babylonians are supposed to 
have been quite familiar with these facts, and to have 
traced a close connexion between them and the world’s 
history. Certain ihyths are supposed to • have charac- 
terized each of these world ages, not only affecting 
religious beliefs, but so obsessing Babylonian thought 

1 Ll. 108 ff. 

2 This was the most important festival in the Babylonian calendar ; see 
above, pp. 190, 296. 

3 See above, p. 293 f. 

4 The position of the sun at the vernal equinox varies, of course, only 
verfe slightly from year to year. Its displacement amounts to only a day in 
about seventy-two years ; and, if we assign thirty degrees to each of the 
twelve ecliptic constellations, it takes 2151 years to pass, in this way, through 
a single figure of the zodiac. 






CULTURAL INFLUENCE 303 

that they influenced historical writings. As the sun at 
the vernal equinox gradually progressed through the 
ecliptic constellations, so, according to the theory, the 
history of the world was believed to be evolved in 
harmony with its course, and the pre-ordained fate of 
the universe was slowly unrolled. 

Up to this point the astral theory is very complete 
and, granting its original hypotheses, it goes smoothly 
enough. But as soon as its authors try to fit the exist- 
ing legends to their theory, difficulties begin. In 
Babylonian mythology we find no pair of heroes who 
present any resemblance to the Dioscuri. But lunar 
cults were prominent in the earliest Babylonian epoch, 
and, in default of any closer parallel, thC two phases of 
the waxing and the waning moon have been treated as 
characterizing the myths and legends of the Age of 
the Twins. Borrowing a term from music, they are 
described as the characteristic motif of the age. The 
second Age, that of the Bull, begins roughly with the 
rise of Babylon to power. There is very slender evidence 
for connecting Marduk, the god of Babylon, with the 
zodiacal constellation of the Bull, but the connexion is 
confidently assumed . 1 The Third Age, that of the 
Ram, presents even more difficulties than its two prede- 
cessors, for no amount of ingenuity can discover material 
for a Ram motif at Babylon. But Jupiter Ammon was 
represented with the head of a ram, and he is assumed 
to have been identical in his nature with Marduk. 
Thus the new reckoning is supposed to have passed over 
to Egypt, while Babylon remained unaffected . 2 The 
explanation put forward is that the Ram Age began at 
a time when the power of Babylon was on the decline ; 
but why the Babylonians should therefore have ignored 


1 The fact that the bull was employed to decorate Ishtar’s Gate at 

Babylon affords no grounds for connecting the bull with the city-god. The 
bull is always associated with the God of Thunder (see above, p. 294, n. 1), 
whereas Marduk was essentially a solar deity. This latter fact is made use of 
by the mythologists, who argue that an Age of the Sun would naturally follow 
an Age of the Moon, and that solar myths are to be looked for as characteristic 
of this second period. 9 

2 The admission that the Marduk-myths were unaffected by the Ram is 
difficult to reconcile with the importance attached by the astral mythologists 
to the advent of a new Age. 



304 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


the true position of the sun at the vernal equinox is not 
quite obvious. 

The foreign influence of Babylon’s conception of the 
universe is said to have left its strongest imprint on 
Hebrew historical writing. It is claimed that the 
Biblical narratives relating to the earlier history of the 
Hebrews have in particular been influenced by the 
Babylonian myths of the universe, and that a great 
number of passages have in consequence an astral sig- 
nificance. This side of the subject has been worked out 
in detail by Dr. Alfred Jeremias , 1 and a few examples 
will suffice to illustrate the system of interpretation 
which is suggested. We will take one of the Babylonian 
legends which ii said to be most frequently encountered 
in the Hebrew narratives, the Descent of the goddess 
Ishtar into the Underworld in search of her youthful 
husband Tammuz, which in its Babylonian form is un- 
questionably a nature-myth. There can 'be little doubt 
that in the myth Tammuz represents the vegetation of 
spring ; this, after being parched up by the summer- 
heat, is absent from the earth during the winter months, 
until restored by the goddess of fertility. There is also 
no doubt that the cult of Tammuz eventually spread 
into Palestine, for Ezekiel in a vision saw women at the 
north gate of the temple at Jerusalem weeping for 
Tammuz . 2 We have already noted its arrival in Greece 
in the story of Adonis and Aphrodite . 3 In its Greek 
form the contest between Aphrodite and Persephone 
for the possession of Adonis reproduces the struggle 
between Ishtar and Ereshkigal in the Abode of the 


1 See his “Pas alte Testament im Li elite des alten Orients'’ (1st ed., 
Leipzig, 1004), and nfore especially the revised am 1 enlarged English 
edition published in 1911 in the “Theological Translation Library.” In his 
introduction to this edition of the work Canon Johns, while stating that it is 
not the province of the writer of an introduction to combat any of the opinions 
of the author, admits that he differs from Pr. Jerepiias’ opinions on many 
points. A reviewer of the volumes in the “ Church Quarterly Review,” 
Vol. LXXIV., No. 147 (April, 1912), pp. 1(»(> ff., comments on “the apolo- 
getic impulse which is as marked in Pr. Jeremias as its form is peculiar.” 
Readers who might be inclined to see in the work grounds for condemning 
the results obtained by the literary criticism of the Old Testament are warned 
byOanon Johns in his introduction that they “would be ill-advised to lean 
too heavily on this staff of Babylonia.” 

2 Ezek. viii., 14. 

3 See above, p. 290. 



CULTURAL INFLUENCE 305 

Dead ; and the annual disappearance and reappearance 
of Tammuz gives rise in the Greek version to the decision 
of Zeus that Adonis should spend one part of the year 
above ground with Aphrodite and the other part under- 
ground with Persephone . 1 Such are the main facts, 
which are not disputed, concerning this particular Baby- 
lonian myth. We may now note the manner in which 
it is said that motifs from it are interwoven in the Old 
Testament with traditions concerning the early history 
of the Hebrews. 

It is well known that in early Christian writings, 
such as the Syriac “Hymn of the Soul.” a Gnostic 
composition of the second or third century a.d., 2 the 
land of Egypt is sometimes referred to in*a metaphorical 
or allegorical sense. It is suggested that the story of 
Abraham’s journey with his wife Sarah into Egypt 3 may 
have been written, by a parallel system of allegory, in 
terms reflecting a descent into the underworld and a 
rescue from it. It is true that in the story Pharaoh’s 
house is plagued, probably with sterility, a feature that 
recalls the cessation of fertility on earth while the god- 
dess of love remains in the underworld. But the same 
motif is traced in the rescue of Lot from Sodom: here 
Sodom is the underworld. The pit into which Joseph 
is thrown by his brethren and the prison into which 
Potiphar easts him also represent the underworld ; and 
his two fellow-prisoners, the chief baker and the chief 
butler, are two minor deities in Marduk’s household . 1 
The cave at Makkedah, in which the five kings of the 
Amorites hid themselves after their defeat by Joshua , 6 
is said to have the same motif underlying it. In short, 
any cave, or prison, or state of misery mentioned in the 
Hebrew narratives may, according to astral interpreta- 
tion, be taken as representing the underworld.® 

1 On the close correspondence of the Greek form of the legend with its 
Babylonian original, see Frazer, “Adonis Attis Osiris,” I., pp. 0 ff. 

2 Ed. Bevan in “ Texts and Studies,” V., 3. 

3 Gen. xii. 

4 Cf. Jeremias, “Old Testament,” I., p. 60, IT., p. 65. These were the 

gods Mina-ikul-bcli, “ What-will-my-lord-eat?”, and Mina-ishti-beli, “ What- 
will-my-lord-drink ? ” (cf. King, “Cun. Texts,” XXIV., 1908, p. 5); but 
there is nothing to connect the Hebrew story with them. • 

6 Josh, x., 10, 16. 

6 In support of such astral motifs evidence of direct worship of Ishtar is 
traced in unexpected quarters. Thus the inen of Gilead are explained to 

X 



306 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

The one other motif we will take from the Baby- 
lonian mythology is the Dragon-combat, since this 
illustrates the principal pattern, or system, on which the 
astral mythologist arranges his material. In the Baby- 
lonian story of the Creation it will be recalled how 
Tiamat, the dragon of chaos, revolted with Apsfi, 
the god of the abyss, against the new and ordered 
ways of the gods ; how Marduk, the champion of the 
gods, defeated her, and, cutting her body in Jialf, used 
one half of her as a firmament for the heaven, and then 
proceeded to carry out his other works of creation . 1 
The probability has long been noted that the Dragon- 
combat, jnay have suggested certain metaphorical phrases 
or descriptions in Hebrew poetical and prophetic 
literature . 2 But the astral mythologist uses it as the 
dominant motif of his Age of Taurus ; and, since this 
age began, according to his theory, before the period ot 
Abraham, the Marduk myths are traced fnore frequently 
than any others in the Old Testament. The astral god 
plays the part of a deliverer in the mythology : hence any 
Biblical hero* who is recorded to have rescued any one, 
or to have delivered his family or people, forms a con- 
venient peg on which to hang a motif. So too the birth 
of the founder of a dynasty, or of the inaugurator of a 
new age, is said to reflect the solar motif of the birth ol 
the spring sun . 8 

In this process of detecting hidden motifs, numbers 
play an important part. To take one example, they are 


have chosen the word shibboleth , ff ear of grain,” as a password for the 
Ephraemites, not because it was a common word containing the required 
sibilant, but in honour of the goddess Ishtar, the heavenly Virgin with the 
ears of corn. And, though the veil was part of the ordinary attire of Hebrew 
women, a natural act such as that told of Rebecca, who is said to have veiled 
herself at the approach of Isaac, is held to reflect the Ishtar cult. 

1 Cf. “ Seven Tablets of Creation,” I., pp. 32 ff. 

2 See especially Gunkell, “Schopfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit,” 

pp. 16 IF. , 

8 Moses, for instance, is peculiarly a deliverer and the inaugurator of 
a new age in Israel’s history ; the traditions about him thus bristle with 
astral motfis. When he is persecuted by Pharaoh in Egypt, Pharaoh is the 
Dragon ; when he is rescued as a babe from the Nile, Pharaoh’s daughter is 
Ishtar, Queen of heaven, and we have a Tammuz-Ishtar motif. When he 
l&ids Israel out of Egypt, we have the motif of victory over the Dragon. The 
crossing of the Red Sea is the cleaving of the Dragon in half, and so too is 
Joshua’s passage of the Jordan. In short, Joshua in his character of deliverer 
rivals Moses in the number of motifs which are said to cluster round him. 



CULTURAL INFLUENCE 


307 


said to indicate that David’s fight with Goliath reflects 
the myth of the Year-Cycle. The forty days during 
which Goliath, who is identified with the Dragon 
Tiamat , 1 drew near to the Israelites morning and evening 
are symbolical of winter. In the Hebrew text his 
height is given as six cubits and a span ; 2 the figure is 
emended to read five cubits and a span, since otherwise 
the number would not correspond to the five and a 
quarter # epagomenal days . 3 With the best will in the 
world to be convinced one cannot help feeling that, 
even assuming the soundness of the theory, its authors 
have let it run away with them. It cannot of course 
be denied that astrological conceptions may colour some 
of the stories in the Old Testament. The three hundred 
foxes, with firebrands tied to their brushes, with which 
Samson destroyed the standing corn of the Philistines, 
find a striking parallel in the ceremonial which took 
place annually in the circus at Rome during the 
Cerealia , 4 and may well be regarded as folk-mythology 
of astrological origin . 5 Elijah’s chariot of fire may have 
been suggested by some astronomical ’ phenomenon, 
perhaps a comet ; it was probably the product of the 
same association of ideas as Medea’s dragon-chariot, the 
gift of Helios. But this scarcely prepares us to accept 
such an allegorizing of details as is proposed in other 
passages. 

1 Jeremias (op. cit ., II., p. 182) connects the name Ooliath with Assyr. 
gaiittu y which lie renders “sea,” hence the dragon Tiamat ; but qalittu, though 
applied to the sea, is merely the feminine of the adj. galtu, “terrible.” 

2 I. Samuel, xvii., 4; Josephus and some MSS. of the Septuagint read 
four cubits and a span. 

3 4 s in so much of their speculation, the members of the astral school 
have here mixed valuable suggestions with pure theorizing. Certain numbers 
were specially sacred among the Babylonians and were employed as divine 
names. Sin, the IVfoon-god, for example, was the god “Thirty,” from the 
conventional length of the lunar month ; and the gods “ Four ” and “ Seven ” 
may have represented different aspects of the Moon-god, the former the four 
phases of the moon, the latter the seven -day week as a lunar quarter. If the 
idea travelled westward^ we obtain a satisfactory explanation of such Pales- 
tinian names as Kiriath-arba and Be’er-sheba*. On this subject, see especially 
Prof. Burney's forthcoming work on “ J udges ” (see above, p. 290, n. 3), 
p. 43 f. Discussions are there given of other points illustrated by the Baby- 
lonian texts, of which special mention may be made of the exhaustive notes 
on Yahwe (pp. 243 ff.) and the Ashera (pp. 196 ff.), and the valuable sectigns 
on early Hebrew poetry. 

4 Ovid, Fasti, IV., 679 ff. ; and cf. Frazer, “Spirits of the Corn,” I., p. 29? f. 

6 See Burney, op. cit., additional note on “The mythical element in the 

•tory of Samson. 1 * 



308 


HISTORY OF BABYLON 


Precisely the same principles of interpretation have 
been applied to the heroes of Greek legend. Professor 
Jensen of Marburg, in his work on the Babylonian 
epic of Gilgamesh, has attempted to trace almost every 
figure, not only in the Old Testament, but also in 
classical mythology, to a Babylonian source . 1 But his 
rather monotonous method of perceiving on all sides 
reflexions of his own hero Gilgamesli has already been 
criticized sufficiently, and we will take some examples 
from a more recent work by Dr. Carl Fries , 2 Who has 
made other contributions of a less speculative character 
upon Greek and Oriental connexions. Elaborating a 
published suggestion of Professor Jensen, Dr. Fries has 
enthusiastically' applied the astral method of interpreta- 
tion to the Odyssey. Such an episode as the voyage of 
Odysseus to Hades, in order to consult the Theban 
prophet Teiresias, undoubtedly presents a close parallel 
to the journey of Gilgamesh to Xisuthros in Babylonian 
legend ; and, though similar traditions are not un- 
common in the epics of other races, the Greek form of 
the story may perhaps retain an echo from Babylon. 
But a far closer relationship than that is suggested. 

The section of the Odyssey which is said to have 
been principally exposed to Babylonian influence is the 
sojourn of Odysseus in Scheria, the whole episode of his 
entertainment by the Phaeacians being said to reflect the 
Babylonian Feast of the New Year. From the moment 
of his awakening on the island we begin to perceive 
astral motifs. In Nausicaa’s choral game of ball with 
her maidens, the ball symbolizes the sun or moon which 
revolves from one side of heaven to the other ; when it 
falls into the river it is the setting sun or moon. 
Odysseus, awakened by the maiden’s shrill cry, comes 
forth from the darkness of the wood : he is the rising 
sun. The way into the city which Nausicaa describes 
to Odysseus corresponds to the sacred. Procession Street 
in Babylon, along which Marduk was carried from his 
temple through the city at the Feast of the New Year. 
The cult-image on its journey must be protected from 

t 

1 See “Das GiJgamesch-Epos in der Weltliteratur ” (Strassbur^, 190(5). 

2 “ Studien zur Odyssee’* in the u Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen 
Gesellschaft/’ 1910, Hefte 2-4 ; 1911, Heft 4. 



CULTURAL INFLUENCE 


309 


the gaze of unconsecrated eyes ; so Athene sheds a 
mist about Odysseus lest any of the Phaeacians should 
accost him by the way. Other astral elements are 
suggested without a specially Babylonian colouring . 1 2 

We are not here concerned with Dr. Fries’ theory on 
the origin of Greek tragedy, but we may note in passing 
that Odysseus, in relating his adventures, is the priest- 
singer at the festival of the Light-god. In other parts 
of the X>dyssey Dr. Fries does not attempt to trace 
many astral motifs, though he certainly remarks that the 
adventures of Odysseus are merely survivals of astral 
myths, and, in spite of a hundred transformations, 
ultimately relate only to the journey of the IJght-god 
over the heavenly ocean . 3 The closing scenes of the 
Odyssey also receive a thoroughly astrological interpre- 
tation, and moon- and sun-motifs appear promiscuously. 
From the speech of Antinous at the trial of the bow we 
know that the* slaying of the wooers took place at the 
Feast of the New Moon, for after Eurymachus and the 
other wooers had failed to bend it, he makes the feast an 
excuse for his proposal to postpone the' trial till the 
morrow. This fact leads to the suggestion that in 
Odysseus returning at the Feast of the New Moon we 
are to recognize the Moon-god himself, who triumphs 
over the darkness with his bow or crescent. On the 
other hand, the twelve axes, through which the arrow 
flies, suggest, presumably by their number, the sun. 
Penelope wooed by the suitors is the moon whom the 
stars surround, and her weaving and unravelling of the 


1 The fifty-two noble youths, for example, whom Alcinous entrusts with 
the task of preparing the ship and escorting Odysseus homewards may corre- 
spond to the fifty-two weeks of the year, sun-heroes who accompany the sun 
on his voyage through the year. In the challenge of Euryalus to Odysseus 
and the latter^ triumph in the discus-throwing, we are to see a glimmer of 
the old light-myth. The dance of Halius and Laodainas, with the purple ball 
which Polybus made for them, again symbolizes the battle of light, the colour 
of the ball being specially significant. Indeed, there are few limits to be 
placed to this system of astrological interpretation, since, according to 
Dr. Fries, even lawn-tennis goes back to the same idea : he remarks that 
“ alles Ballspiel ja bis herab zum Lawn-Tennis auf denselbcn Gedanken [der 
Lichtkampf] zuriiekgeht ” (“ Studien zur Odyssee,” i., p. 324). 

2 One point, at which the colouring is said to be peculiarly Babylonian, is 

the prophecy that death shall come to Odysseus from the sea ; for this is 
traced to the Babylonian legend of Oannes, the benefactor of mankind, who 
ever returns to the sea from which he rose. But here, too, Odysseus is the 
god of heaven who sinks at the approach of night. 



310 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

web is a moon -motif. Then Odysseus as the sun draws 

near, and all the stars are eclipsed at his appearance. 

In such hands the astral theory carries its own 
antidote, for one cannot but be struck with the ease 
with which it may b£ applied. There is generally no 
need to prove a mythological setting to the narrative ; 
all that is necessary is to assume an astral meaning 
beneath the text. 1 In fact, one way of demonstrating 
its unsoundness has been to apply its methods to the 
records of the life of a historical personage. 2 * * * * * 6ut this 
argument amounts at best to a reductio ad absurdum, 
and the most damaging criticism has been directed from 
the purely astronomical side. 

It is well known that the different ecliptic constella- 
tions which make up the signs of the zodiac do not each 
occupy thirty degrees of the ecliptic, but that some are 
longer and some shorter than others. Also, the con- 
stellations of the Babylonian astronomers during the 
late period did not completely coincide with ours. For 
instance, the most eastern star of our constellation Virgo 
was counted by the Babylonians of the Arsacid era as 
belonging to the next ecliptic constellation, Leo, since 
it was known as “ the hind-foot of the lion.” 8 But, 
fortunately for our purpose, not much doubt can exist as 
to the eastern limit of the Twins and the western limit 
of the Ram, which mark the beginning and end of the 
three World Ages of the astral mythologists. For the 
two bright stars, Castor and Pollux, from which the 
Twins receive their name were undoubtedly reckoned 
in that constellation by the Neo- Babylonians. And the 
easternmost star of our constellation of the Fishes (a 

1 With regard to its Upplication to the Hebrew narratives, the €t Church 

Quarterly” reviewer of Dr. Jeromias’ work (see above, p. 304, n. 1) points 

out the resemblance between this procedure and Philo’s method of inter- 

pretation. 

* In 1870 the same plan was adopted to discredit professor Max Muller’s 

theory of the Solar Myth. The demonstration, though humorous (since its 
subject was the professor himself), constituted a legitimate form of criticism, 
and it has been borrowed by Dr. Kugler, the Dutch astronomer, and applied 
to the astral theory. For the astral theory is in essence the old Solar Myth 
revived and grafted on to a Babylonian stem. In his book “Im Bannkreis 
Babels " (1910), Dr. Kugler selects at random the historical figure of Louis IX. 

of France, and has no difficulty in demonstrating by astral methods that the 
extant records of his life and reign are full of solar and astral mot\fs. 

8 Cf. Kugler, op. cit . 








CULTURAL INFLUENCE 311 

piscium) was probably well beyond the Babylonian 
constellation of the Ham. 

Working on this assumption, and assuming thirty 
degrees to each of the three intervening constellations, 
Dr. Kugler has calculated the years in which the sun 
entered these signs of the zodiac at the vernal equinox, 
the points, that is to say, at which the astral World- 
Ages would have begun and ended. His figures 
entirely dispose of Winckler’s claim to an astronomical 
basis for his astral system. The Age of the Twins, 
instead of ending, according to the theory, at about 
2800 b.c., really ended in the year 4383 b.c. Thus the 
Age of the Bull began over fifteen hundred years before 
the birth of S argon I., who is supposed .> to have 
inaugurated its beginning ; and it ended in 2232 B.c. — 
that is, considerably before the birth of Hammurabi, 
under whom we are told the Bull Age motifs were 
principally developed. Moreover, from the time of thfe 
First Dynasty onwards down to the year 81 b.c. — that 
is to say, during the whole course of her history — 
' Babylon was really living in the Age of„ the Ram, not 
in that of the Bull. Thus all the motifs and myths, 
which hive been so ingeniously connected with the Bull 
sign of the zodiac, ought really to have been connected 
with the Ram. But even the astral mythologists admit 
that there is not a trace of a Ram-mofj/* in the Baby- 
lonian mythology. Granting all the assumptions made 
by Winckler and his school with regard to the astro- 
nomical knowledge of the early Babylonians, the theory 
evolyed from them is found to be baseless. Winckler’s 
astronomy was at fault, and his three astrological 
World- Ages do not really correspond to his periods of 
history. 1 „ . 

Babylon was, indeed, the mother of astronomy no 
less than of astrology, and classical antiquity was 
indebted to he^ in no small measure ; but, strictly 
speaking, her scientific observations do not date from a 
very early period. It is true we have evidence that, 
as early as the close of the third millennium, the 

1 His interpretation of Euripides’ story of the Golden Lamb must sliare 
the fate of the main structure of his theory ; hut the legend itself may well 
have been of Babylonian drigin (see above, p. 203). 



312 HISTORY OF BABYLON 

astronomers recorded observations of the planet Venus, 1 
and there is also a fragment of an early text which shows 
that they attempted to measure approximately the 
positions of the fixed stars. But their art of measuring 
remained for a long time primitive, and it was only the 
later Babylonians, of the period from the sixth to the first 
century b.c., who were enabled to fix with sufficient 
accuracy the movements of the planets, especially those 
of the moon, and by this means to found a reliable system 
of time-measurement. The mere fact that the astro- 
logical texts, even in ,the late Assyrian period, treat 
eclipses as possible on any day of the month, and use the 
term for any kind of obscuration of the sun and moon, 
is sufficient evidence that they had not at that time 
noted their regular occurrence and still had compara- 
tively crude notions of astronomy. 2 * * * * * 8 

The earliest scientific document in the strict sense of 
the word dates from the second half of the sixth cen- 
tury, when we find for the first time that the relative posi- 
tions of the sun and moon were calculated in advance, 
as well as the conjunction of the moon with the planets 
and of 'the planets with each other, their position being 
noted in the signs of the zodiac. But the tablets 
afford no evidence that the Babylonian astronomers 
possessed any knowledge of the precession of the 
equinoxes before the close of the second century b.c., 
and the traditional ascription of the discovery to 
Hipparchus of Nicaea, working between the years 161 
and 126 b.c. on the observations of his Babylonian pre- 
decessors, may be accepted as accurate. 2 


1 See above,, pp. 1 00 ff. 

2 For an exhaustive discussion of the astrological material contained in 

the omen-literature, sec .Jastrow, 44 Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens,” II., 

pp. 138 IF. (1909-12). A Neo-Babylonian astronomical treatise, recently 

acquired by the British Museum (see Plate XXXII., opposite p. 310), con- 

taining classified and descriptive lists of the principal stars and constellations, 
with their heliacal risings and settings, culminations iii the south, etc., does 
not suggest a profound knowledge of astronomy on the part of its compiler 

(cf. King, “ Cun. Texts," XXXI II., 1912, pp. 3 ff., and “ Proc. Soc. Bibl. 
Arch./' XXXV., 1913, pp. 41 ff.). 

8 See “ Stcrnkunde und Sterndienst,*’ II., pp. 30 ff , ; cf. also Oumont, 
“Babylon und der griechische Astrologie,” in the “Neue Jahrbiicher fur das 
klassische Altertum,” Bd. 27 (1911), pp. 0 ff. , and the earlier of his 44 American 
Lectures on the History of Religions/’ published under the title “ Astrology 
and Religion among the Greeks and Romans” (1912;. 



CULTURAL INFLUENCE 313 

There are, in short, no grounds for the theory that 
the Babylonians divided the history of the world into 
astral ages, nor that their myths and legends had any 
peculiar connexion with successive signs of the zodiac. 
That astrology formed an important section of the 
Babylonian religious system from an early period there 
can be no doubt ; but at that time the stars and 
planets did not exercise any* preponderating influence 
on religious belief, and many features of the system, 
for which an astral origin has been confidently assumed, 
must be traced to a simpler and more primitive associa- 
tion of ideas. 1 2 * But the necessary modification of the 
astral theory still leaves open the possibility that 
Hebrew literature may have acquired* a str<5ng astro- 
logical tinge in the Exilic and post-Exilic periods. 
Were Jewish traditions affected in Babylon, for example, 
in some such way as the Mithraic legends from Persia^? 
Since the asiral theory has no claim to dictate the 
answer for us, the question must be decided by the 
ordinary rules of historical and literary evidence. 

If we are to assume that Babylonian astrology 
exerted so marked an influence on the Jews of the 
Exile, we should at least expect to find some traces 
of it in practical matters and in terminology. And 
in this connexion there are certain facts which have 
never been fairly met by the astral mythologists. 8 It 
is true that the returning exiles under Zerubbabel had 
adopted the Babylonian names of the months for civil 
use ; but the idea of hours — that is to say, the division 
of the day into equal parts — does not seem to have 
occurred to the Jews till long after the Exile, and even 
then there is no trace of the Babylonian double hour. 8 
The other fact is still more significant. With the 
exception of a single reference to the planet Saturn by 
the prophet Amos, 4 none of the Hebrew names for 
the stars and constellations, which occur in the Old 

1 See above, p. 298 f. 

2 They are emphasized by Schiarparelli, in his “Astronomy in the Old 
Testament" (Eng-1, transl.), pp. 39 ff., 99 ff., 104 f. 

8 During their pastoral and agricultural life in Palestine the Hebrews 
found it quite sufficient to refer to time by describing the period of the day 
see further, Schiarparelli, op. cit p. 90. 

4 Amos, v., 20. 



314 fclSTORY OF BABYLON 

Testament, correspond to those we know were in use in 
Babylon. Such a fact is surely decisive against any 
wholesale adoption of astral mythology from Babylon 
on the part of the writers or redactors of the Old 
Testament, whether in pre-Exilic or in post-Exilic 
times. But it is quite compatible with the view that 
some of the imagery, and even certain lines of thought, 
occurring in the poetical* and prophetic books of the 
Hebiews, betray a Babylonian colouring and may find 
their explanation in the cuneiform literature. ' There 
can be no doubt that the Babylonian texts have afforded 
invaluable assistance in the effort to trace the working 
of the oriental mind in antiquity. 

With regard « to the suggested influence of Babylon 
on Greek religious thought, it is essential to realize 
that the temperaments of the Babylonian and the 
fpsllene were totally distinct, the fanatic and self-abasing 
spirit of the East contrasting vividly with the coolness, 
civic sobriety, and self-confidence of the West. This 
has been pointed out by Dr. Farnell , 1 who lays special 
emphasis on the total absence of any trace in Meso- 
potamian cults of those religious mysteries, which, as 
he has shown elsewhere, formed so essential a feature 
in Hellenic and iEgean society . 2 Another fact in which 
he would see significance is that the use of incense, 
universal from immemorial times in Babylonia, was not 
introduced into Greece before the eighth century b.c. 
This little product, it will be readily admitted, was much 
easier to import than Babylonian theology. Few will 
disagree with him in regarding the suggestion, that for 
long centuries the Hittite empire was a barrier between 
Mesopotamia and the coast-lands of Asia Minor , 8 as a 
sufficient reason for this check in the .direct spread 
of Babylonian influence westward. But no political 
barrier is effective against the tales that are remembered 
b^ travelling merchants and are retpld around the 
camp-fires of the caravan. That Babylon should have 
contributed in some degree to the rich store of legends 

f Cf. “ Greece and Babylon ” (published as the Wilde Lectures, 1911). 

2 See hi8 “ Cults of the Greek States,” Oxford, 1890-1901). 

8 Cf. Hogarth, “ Ionia and the East,” pp. 27 ff., 04 ff. 



CULTUKAL INFLUENCE 315 

current in various forms throughout the region of the 
eastern Mediterranean is what one would expect. 

The cultural influence of Babylonia had from the 
earliest period penetrated eastward, and the civilization 
of Elam, her nearest neighbour, had been to a great 
extent moulded by that of Sumer. But even at that 
time the trade-routes had been open to the west, and 
before the rise of Babylon both soldier and merchant 
had passed from the lower Euphrates into Syria. With 
the exp*ansion of the Western Semites the two regions 
were drawn into more intimate relationship, and the 

{ )olitical control of the middle Euphrates, first estab- 
ished in the age of Hammurabi, was followed by an 
increased commercial traffic, which continued* with few 
interruptions into the Neo-Babylonian and later periods. 
Babylon’s foreign policy was always dominated by the 
necessity of keeping her connexion open witli the west ; 
and it was mainly due to her commercial enterprise, and 
not to any territorial ambitions, that her culture reached 
the farther limits of Palestine and has left some traces 
in Greek mythology. . 




APPENDICES 

I. — A COMPARATIVE LIST OF THE DYNASTIES OF 
NISIN, LARSA AND BABYLON. 

II.— A DYNASTIC LIST OF THE KINGS *OF BABYLON. 



A COMPARATIVE LIST OF THE DYNASTIES OF NISIN, LARSA, AND BABYLON. 


t 



318 



A COMPARATIVE LIST OF THE DYNASTIES OF XISIX, LARSA, AND BABY-LON (continued). 



319 



II. A DYNASTIC LIST OF THE KINGS OF BABYLON. 


CONTRMPORANROUS RULERS. 


DYNASTIES I. AND HI. 


II. Second Dynasty 
(11 kings). 

1. Iluma-ilum (60) 

2. Itti-ili-nibi (55) 

3. Pamki-ilishu (36) 

4. Ishkibal (15) 

5. Sushshi (27) 

6. Gulkishar, (55) 

7. Peshgal daramash, (50) 

8. A-dara-kalama (28) 

9. Akur-ul-ana (26) 

10. Melam-kurkura (7) 

11. Ea-gamil (9) 


I. First Dynasty 
(11 kgs. ; o. 300 yrs.). b.c. 

1. Sumu-abum (14) 2225-2212 

2. Sumu-la-ilum, (36) 2211-2176 

3. Zabum, (14) 2175-2162 

4. Apil-Sin, (18) 2161-2144 

5/ Sin-imiballit, (20) 2143-2124,1 

6. Hammurabi, (43) 2123-2081 

7. Samsu-iluna, (38) 2Q 80-2043 

8. Abi-oshu’, (28) 2042-2015 

9. Ammi-ditana, (37) 2014-1978 

10. Ammi-zaduga, (21) 1977-1957 

11. Samsu-ditana (31) 1956-1926 

III. Third Dynasty 
(36 kgs. ; 576£ yrs.). 


1. Gandash, (16) 

2. A gum (22) 

3. Kashtiliash I., (22) 

4. Ushshi (8) 

5. Abi-rattash, 

6. Tashshi-gurumash, 

7. Agum-kakrime 


1760-1745 

1744-1723 

1722-1701 

1700-1693 

1692 


Contemporaneous kings of 
Assyria, 

Ashur-rim-nisheshu 


Kadashman-Kharbe I., 
Kurigalzu I., 
Mcli-Shipak I. 


Puzur-Ashur.. 

Ashur-uballit 

Enlil-nirari .. 
Adad-nirari 1. 


Tukulti-Ninib I. 


Enlil-kudur-usur . 


Kara-indash I. c. 

Kadasliman-Enlil I., 

[ HBujriash 

Kurigalzu II., 

Burna-Buriash (25) c. 

Kara-indash II. 

Nazi-bugash (usurper) 
Kurigalzu III., (23) 
Nazi-maruttasli, (26) 
Kadashman-turgu, (17) 
Kadasliman-Enlil II. (6) 
Kudur-Enlil, (9) 
Shagarakti-Shuriasli, (13) 
Kasntiliash 11. (8) « 

Enlil-nadin-shum (l£) 
Kadashman-Kharbe II. (1J) 
Adad-shum-iddin (6) 


Asliur-dan 1. 


Merodach-baladan I. (13) 
Zamama-shum-iddin (1) 
Bel-nadin-[akhi] (3) 


1357-1335 

1334-1309 

1308-1292 

1291-1286 

1285-1277 

1276-1264 

1263-1256 

1255-1254 

1254-1253 

1252-1247 

1246-1217 

1216-1202 

1201-1189 

1188 

1187-1185 


N.B. A comma after a kings name implies that he was succeeded by his son. 


320 







II. A DYNASTIC LIST OF THE KfNGS OF BABYLON (continued). 


Dynasties IV.-1X. 


IV. Fourth Dynasty 
(11 kgs. ; 132£ yrs.). 

1. Marduk-[shapik- b.c. 

zerim] (17) 1184-1168 

2 (C) 1167-1162 

3 

4. Nebuchadnezzar i. c. 1140 

6. Enlil-nadin-apli 

6. Marduk-ilhdin-akhd c. 1110 

7. Marduk-sliapik-zer-m&ti c. IKK) 

8. Adad-aplu-iddina (22) 1095-1074 

9. Marduk-akhi-erba (H) 1073 

10. Marduk-zer-f ] (12) 1072-1061 

11. Nabu-shum-libur (8) 1060-1053 

V. Fifth Dynasty 
(3 kgs. ; 21^ yrs.). 

1. Simmash-Shipak (18) 1052-1035 

2. Ea-mukm-zer (y^) 1035 

3. Kashsliu-nadin-akhi (3) 1034-1032 

VI. Sixth Dynasty 
(3 kgs. ; 20i yrs.). 

1. E-ulmash-shakin- 

shum (17) 1031-1015 

2. Ninib-kudur-usur (3) 1014-1012 

3. Shilanum-Shukamuna (]) 1012 

VII. Seventh Dynasty 
(1 kg. ; 6 yrs.). 

1. [Ae-aplu-usur] (6) 1011-1006 

VIII. Eighth Dynasty 
(about 13 kgs.). 


Nabfi-mukin-apli (36) 

1005 1)70 

Sibir 

Sh amaBh -m u d mn m ik 
NabiVshuni-ishknn I., 

c. 910 

Nabh-aplu-iddina, 

c. 885 

Marduk-zakir-shurn, 

c. 855 

Marduk-bal&tsu-ikbi 

Erba-Marduk 

c. 830 

Bau-akhi-iddina 

c. 815 


IX. Ninth Dynasty 
(about 5 kgs.). 


Nabti-shum-ishkun II. 

Nabonassar, (14) 747-731 

Nabft-nadin-zer(,) (2) 733-732 

Nabfi-shum-ukin (^) 732 


Later Periods. 


X. Period*/>f Assyrian Domination 
(107 years). „ c 

1. Nabd-mukin-zer (3) 732-730 

2. Pulu (Tiglath- 

pileser IV.), (2) 729-727 

3. .Ululai (Shalmaneser 

V.) (5) 727-722 

4. Merodach-baladan II. (12) 721-710 

5. Sargon, (5) 709-705 

6. Sennacherib (2) 704 -703 

7. Marduk-zakir-slium (A-,) I * n0 

8. Merodacli-baladau II. (|)J * ' * 


9. Bel-ibni (3) 

10. Ashur-nadm-shum (6) 

(son of Seifti&chcribjft 

11. Nergal-ushezib (14) 

12. Mushezib-Marduk (4) 

13. Sennacherib, (8) 


702-700 

699-694 


693 692 
692 -689 
688-681 


14. Esarhaddon, (12) (581-569 

15. Shanmsh-shum-ukiu (20) 668- 64ft 

16. Kandalanu 647 626 

17. Ashur-etil-il&ni 625-c. 618 

18. Sin-sbum-lisliir c. 618 

19. Sin-shar-isbkun c. 616 


(Capture of Nineveh by the Medes, 606.) 
XI. Neo-Babylonian Empire 


(6 kgs. ; 86 yrs.). 

1. Nabopolassar, 

625-604 

2. Nebuchadnezzar II., 

604-561 

3. Amel-Marduk 

561-559 

4. Neriglissar, 

559-556 

5. Labashi-Marduk 

556 

6. Nabonidus 

655-539 

XII. AriTAEMKNIAN KlNGS 

(11 kgs. ; 208 yrs.). 

• 

1. Cyrus, 

2. Cambyses 

539-529 

529 522 

3. Darius 1. Pystaspis, 

522-486 

4. Xerxes 1., 

486 465 

6. Artaxerxes I. Longimanus 

465 424 

6. Xerxes 11. (45 days) 

424 

7. Darius 11., 

424-404 

8. Artaxerxes 11. Mnemon, 

404-359 

9. Artaxerxes III. Ochus, 

359 338 

10. Arses 

338-336 

11. Darius III. Codomanus 

336-331 


(Capture of Babylon by Alexander, 331) 






INDEX 


A-DARA-Ky^oLA, king of Second 
DynaBty, 202 ; in List, 320 
Abba-dugga, priest of Lagash, 147 
Abbasid Caliphate, 11 
Abi-eshu’, king of First Dynasty, 
105, 205 f. ; letters of, 171, 192 ; 
in List, 320 

Abi-eshu’ Canal, 205 • 

Abi-rattash, king of Third Dynasty, 
217 f. ; in List, 320 
Abi-sar&, king of Larsa, 89 f . , 147 ; 

in List, 318 
Abraham, 305 # 

Abti Habba, 134, 147^ 

Abti Hatab, 85 
Abydenus, 115, 280 
Abydos, 235 

Achssmeni&n kings, 2, 8, 285 ff., 321 
Actaeon, 290 
Adab, 159, 213 

Adad, 148, 256 ; roading of name of, 
150 ; representations of, 266, 271 ; 
see also E-namkhe, E-ugalgal 
Adad-aplu-iddina, king of Fourth 
Dynasty, 256 f. ; in List, 321 
Adad-nirari L, king of Assyria, 243 ; 
in List, 320 

Adad-nirari III., king of Assyria, 
259 

Adad-nirari IV., king of Assyria, 265 
Adad-rabi, of Nippur, 102 
Adad-sh<*r-il&ni, Kassite ambassador, 
238 

Adad-shum-iddin, king of Third 
Dynasty, 244 ; ia List, 320 
Adad-shum-usur, king of Third 
Dynasty, 244 ; in List, 320 
Addis, Rev. W. E., 62 
Aden, 121 
Adhem, 212 

Adini, Chaldean ruler, 263 
Adonis, 290, 304 f. 

Adoption, laws of, 185 
Ae-aplu-usur, king of Seventh 
Dynasty, 258 ; in List, 321 
Africa, 120 
Agade, see Akkad 
Agriculture, Babylonian, 167 ff. 


Agum I., king of Thud Dynasty, 
217 ; in List, 320 
Agum, son of Kashtiliash I., 217 f. 
Agum-kakrime, king of Third 
Dynasty, 210, 213, 241, 296; 
genealogy of, 217 ; in List, 320 
Aljimer, mounds of, 143 
Aia, goddoss, 2bl • 
Aia-khegallum Canal, 153 
Aibur-shabd, 30 
Ak-su, 212 
‘Akarkftf, 15 

AkarBallu, 243 # 

Akhenaten (Amen-hetep IV.), king 
of Egypt, 219 ; letters to, 220, 222 ; 
policy of, 222; and the Hittites, 
234 

Akhetaten, in E£ppt, 219 
Akhetaten, in Canaan, 225 i 
Akhlame, 260 

Akia, Kassite ambassador, 225 
Akkad, 3, 10 f., 118 f., 148 f. ; in 
astrology, 140 ; as geographical 
term, 244 

Akkad (Agade), 159 ; see also Ishtar 
Akshimakshu, rebel loader, 286 
Akur-ul-ana, king of Second Dynasty, 
202 ; in List, 320 
Al-Btt-shar-Babili, 41 
AI-‘Mkan, 10 
Al-‘Ir&kayn, 10 

Al-Mad£in, 9 f 

Alabaster jars, manufacture of, 41 
Alcinous, 309 
Aleppo, 14 1, 152 

Alexander, the Great, 7 f., 73, 115 f., 
287 ; in List, 321 
Alman, 218 
Alorus, 115 

Altars, Babylonian, 61 f., 64, 66, 69 ; 

Hebrew, 62 * 

Alyattes, king of Lydia, 279, 282 
Amal, 204 
Amanus, Mt., 262 
A mama, in Syria, 127 • 

Amarna, in Egypt ; see Tell el* 
Amaraa 

Amasis, king of Egypt, 278 



324 INDEX 


Amdl-Marduk, king of Babylon, 280 ; 
in List, 321 

Amen-hetep III., king of Egypt, 
219 ff., 230, 233 ; letters of, 220 f. 
Amen-hetep IV., king of Egypt, 111, 
219 ; see also Akhenaten 
Ammi-bail, king of Khana, 129 f. 
Ammi-ditana, king of First Dynasty, 
84, 206 ff. ; estimate of, 205 ; letter 
of, 191 ; in List, 320 
Ammi-ditana Canal, 207 
Ammi-zaduga, king of First Dynasty, 
107 ff., 116 f., 206, 209 ; letters of, 
168 ; in List, 320 

Ammi-zaduga-nukhush-nishi Canal, 
210 

Ammon, 293 

Amorite migration, 119 f. 

Amorites, raids of, 13f5, 182, 204 f. 
Amos, 313 

Amraphel, king of Shinar, 159 
Amurru, West-Semitic god, 150 
Amurru, the Western Semites, 119 f., 
c 125 f., 136, 152, 157, 203, 210, 237, 
c 255 ; in astrology, 140 ; their 
quarter m Sippar, 207 
Amursha-Dagan, of Khana, 131 
An -am, king of Erecli, 211 f. 

Anana, 23 
Anatolia, 128 c 
Andrae,*W., 23, 25, 28, 33, 53, 64 f., 
68, 71, 137 

Animal formB, in Babylonian myth- 
ology, 297 f. 

Animism, 299 
Anna-B61, 287 
Anshan, in Elam, 282 
Ante-chambers, to shrines, 64 
Antinous, 309 
Antiochus Soter, 287 
Anu, 95, 155, 144, 146 ; see also 
E-anna 

Aphrodite, 290, 304 f. 

Apil-Sin, king of First Dynasty, 136, 
149 f. ; in List, 319 f. 

Appeal, right of, 185 
A pries, king of Egypt, 277 f. 

Apsfi, god of the abyss, 206 
Arab conquest, of Mesopotamia, 10 
Arabia, as cradle of the Semites, 
119 f. ; physiographical features 
of, 120 ff. ; Southern, 121 
Arabian coast, 6 
Arabians, as nomads, 121 ff. 
Arad-Nannar, father-in-law of Rim- 
Sin, 166 

ArAd-shasha, king of Erech, 212 
Arad-sibitti, 258 f. 

Arakha, rebel leader, 286 
Aiakhab, Sumerian leader, 208 


Arakhtu Canal, 206, 207 ; latqr em- 
ployment of name, 34, 36 
Arakhtu- wall, 74 
Aramean migration, 120 
Arameans, raids by, 4, 258 f., 264 f. ; 

and Assyria, 260; and the §utfi,256 
Arched doorway, in Babylon, 39 
Arches, in vaulted building, 47 
Architecture, Babylonian, 19 ; re- 
ligious, 63, 66 ; military, 63, 66 f. 
Ardashir I., founder of Sassanian 
Empire, 9 ♦ 

Ardys, king of Lydia, 279 ; 

Argives, 293 
Argos, 290 

Ari-Teshub, Mitannian name, 139 
Aries, 293 

Arioch, king of Ellasar, 159 
Aristotle, 116 
Arkum, 204 

Armenia, 1, 262, 265 ; see also Urartu 
Arnuanta, Hittite king, 240 f. 
Arsacidae, 9 

Arses, king of Persia, 321 
Artaxerxes 1., Lnngimanus, king of 
Persia, 321 

ArtaxerxeB II., Mnemon, king of 
Persia, 21, 321 

Artaxerxes III., Ochus, king of 
Persia, 321 
Artemis, 290 
Aruna, Hittite town, 227 
Aryans, as horse keepers, 216 • 
Arzawa, Hittite kingdom of, 230 
Ashdod, 132 

Ashduni-crim, king of Kish, 143 f. 
Ashera, 307 

Ashir, god of Ashur, 139 ; see also 
Ashur 

Ashir-rim-nishSshu, king of Assyria, 
139 ; see also Ashur-rim-nishesliu 
Ashnunnak, 157, 218; sec also Tup- 
liash 

Ashratum, 150 
Ashukhi Canal, 143 
Ashur, city, 21, 157 ff. ; discoveries 
at, 20, 137 ff early inhabitants 
of, 128, 140 

Ashur-bani-pal, king of Assyria, 8, 
31, 73, 113, 271 ff 
Ashur-bel-kab , king of Assyria, 254, 

256 

Ashur-d&n I., king of Assyria, 244 ; 
in List, 320 

Ashur-etil-ilfiiii, king of Assyria, 273 ; 
in List, 321 

Ashur-nadin-shum, king of Babylon, 
270 ; in List, 321 

Ashur-nasir-pal, king of Assyria, 

257 ff ; policy of, 262 



INDEX 


325 


Ashur-rfipih ishi, king of Assyria, 112, 
255 

Ashur-rtm-nish&shu, king of Assyria, 
242 ; in List, 320 

Ashur-uballit, king of Assyria, 222 f., 
243 ; in List, 320 
Asiru, father of Pukhia, 212 
. Ass, as beast of burden, 122, 183, 
215 

Assault, penalties for, 165 
Assyria, expansion of, 12, 265 ; and 
•Babylon, 3 f., 157, 241 ff. f 273 ; 
and Egypt, 219, 269, 272 f. ; and 
Mitanni, 220 f., 241 ; and the 
Hittites, 239, 241, 243 
Assyrian settlements; in Cappadocia, 

227 

Assyrians, racial character of, 141 
Astarte worship, centres of, 290 
Astrologers, Babylonian, 189 ; Greek, 
292 

Astrological texts, 140 
Astrology, 291 f., 299 f. 

Astronomical omens, 106 f. 
Astronomy, Babylmiian, 289, 311 ff. 
Astyages, king of Media, 282 
Aten, Egyptian cult of, 219, 223 
Athene, 309 
Atlila, in Zamua, 259 
Atrous, 292 f. 

Attica, 290 

Aushpia, founder of temple of Ashir, 
139 

Ay, Egyptian priest, 223 
Azariah, 14 

Aziru, Syrian prince, 234 

Ba’alim, of Canaan, 126 ; of Khana, 
131 

Bilb Belti, 40. 

B&b-ili, 14, 28 
Babel, Tower of, 15 
Babil, mound of, 14 ft’., 22, 27 ; in 
plan, 23 

Babylon, strategic position of, 4 ft’. ; 
remains of, 14 ff. ; walls of, 21 ft’., 
29 ff. ; size of, 2> ; plans of, 16, 23 
Babylonia, climate of, 40, 170 ; fer- 
tility of, 167 ; names for, 244 ; 
political centre of gravity in, 3, 9 
Babylonian Chronicle, 265 
Babylonian language, 1, 218 f. 
Baghdad, 5, 11, 14 f., 17, 22 
Bahrein, 6 
Baka, in Sukhi, 266 
Bakani, 263 
Ball, Rev. C. J., 37 
Banti-shinni, Amorite prince, 237 f. 
Bardiya, 285 

Barges, Babylonian, 180 f. 


Barter, 196 
Barzi, 149 
Basra, 9 f., 11 
Basu, 153, 155 

Battlements, in architecture, 67 
Bau, goddess, 297 

Bau-akhi-iddina, king of Eighth 
Dynasty, 265 ; in List, 321 
Bavian, 112 
Be’er-sheba*, 307 
Bees, in Sukhi, 266 f. 

Bohistun, 286 

Bel, taking hands of, 38, 296 
Bel-aplu-iddin, Babylonian general, 
260 

Bel-ibni, king of Babylon, 270 ; in 
List, 321 

Bel-nadin-[akhi], king of Third 
Dynasty, 245 ; in List, 320 
Bel-shalti-Nanfiar, daughter of Na- 
bonidus, 281 

Bel-shar-usur, see Belshazzar 
Bel-shemea, 212 

Bel-shum-ishkun, father of Neriglis- 
sar, 280 • 

Bel-simanni, rebel leader, 286 
Belshazzar, 282 ff. 

Benjamin, of Tudela, 14 f. 

Bentresh, Hittite princess, 240 
Berossus, 47, 2ii0, 301 ; history of, 
106 ; dynasties of, 114 ff. • 

Beuyuk Kale, 230 
Bevan, Prof. A. A. , 305 
Bevan, E. R., 7, 980 
Be wsher, Lieut. J. B., 17 
Bezold, Prof. C., 72, 107, 110, 219 
Bird, of Bau, 297 
Birds, as foundation-deposits, 63 
Birizzarru, West-Semitie month, 131 
Birs-Nimrfid, 15, 22 ; see also El- 
Birs, Borsippa 
Bismaya, 20, 138 
Bit-Adini, 260 
Bit-Bazi, 257 
Bit-Iakin, 269 
Bit-Karkara, 152 f., 159 
Bft-KarziaWcu, 253 
Bit-Khadippi, 260 
Bit-Pir-Shadu-rabil, 248 
Bit-r6sh, 287 
Bit-Sikkamidu, 249 
Bitti-Dagan, of Khana, 132 
Black Sea, 5 
Bliss, F. J., 125 
Bloomfield, Prof. M., 227 
Boat-builders, 180 
Boatmen, 180 f. 

Boats, of Khonsu, 238 ff. 

Boghaz Keui, 219, 230 ; letters from 
219 f., 239 f. ; see also Khatti 



326 ' INDEX 


Boissier, A., 133, 154 f., 286 
“ Borsippa, 60, 159, 259, 263 f. ; 
temple-tower of, 77 f. ; plan of, 16 
Bosanquet, R. H. M., 106 
Botta, Emil, 18 

Boundary- stones, 241, 244 ff., 252 
Breach of promise, of marriage, 186 
Breasted, Prof. J. H., Ill, 133, 219, 
222, 235, 240 
Breccia, for paving, 59 
Bribery, punishment for, 189 
Bride-price, 186 

Bridge, over Euphrates, 47, 60, 74 f., 
81 ; over canal, 37 
Bridge-building, 249 
Bridges-of -boats, 81, 262, 204 
Bronze age, at Carchemish, 128 
Bronze -casting, 207 
Bronze step, from E-zida, 27, 77 
Budge, Dr. f E. A. Wallis, 111, 150, 
176, 219, 235, 241 
Builders, responsibilities of, 184 
Building, art of, 19 f. 

Bull, in mythology, 55, 294, 303 ; in 
c symbolism, 298 
Bulls, enamelled, 50 f. 
Bunatakhtun-ila, vassal-ruler of Sip- 
par, 143 

BQr-Sin II., king of Nisin, 147 ; in 
List, 318 * 

Burial, Neo- Babylonian, 66 f. 
Burna-Burariash, see Burna-Buriash 
Buma-Buriasb. king of Third Dy- 
nasty, 242 f. ; date of, 110 f. ; letters 
from, 220 ff. ; in List, 320 
Burna-Buriash, Kassite chieftain, 
217 

Burney, Prof. C. F., 290, 292, 307 
Burrows, Prof. R. M., 293 
Burusha, jewel- worker, 259 
Bury, G. W., 121 
Byblos, 290 


Calendar, regulation of, 189 f. 
Callisthenes, 116 4 

Oambyses, king of Persia, 285 ; in 
List, 321 

Camel, introduction of, 122 
Canaan, 1 ; inhabitants of, 119 f., 
124 ff. ; civilization of, 124 ff. ; 
Egyptian conquest of, 219 
Canaanites, and Babylon, 224 f. 
Canals, repair of, 170 f. 

Cancer, constellation, 301 
Cappadocia, 3 f., 227 
Capricorn, constellation, 301 
Caravans, 182 f., 225, 237 «• 

O^chemish, 128 f., 182, 227, 260, 


262 ; Battle of, 277 > excavations 
at, 127 

Carchemisian, pottery-name, 128 
Castor, star, 310 

Cedar, in construction, 40, 52, 141. 
263 

Central Citadel, of Babylon, 28 
Cerealia, 307 
Chaldea, 262 ff, 270 
Chaldeans, 257, 263 f. ; of Nagitu, 
270 

Chedorlaomer, king of Elam, 159 * 
Chief -baker, 305 
Chief-butler, 305 1 

Chiera, R, 92 ff., 102, 104, 150 ff, 
155 f., 204 

China, Great Wall of, 21 ; city-sites 
in, 22 

Chronicles, 210 
Chronology, 87 ff., 117 f. 

Cilicia,' 230, 262 
Cilician Gates, 4 f. 

Cimmerians, 269, 275, 279 
Citadel, character of Babylonian, 27 
Class privileges, 164 f. 

Clay, Prof. A. T., 91, 99, 150, 150, 
245, 254, 282 ; discoveries of, 

89 f. } 94 ff., 148, 163, 287 
Code, of Hammurabi, 160 f., 252; 
Prologue of, 158 f. ; Sumerian, 
163, 299 

Collingwood, Lieut. W., 17 
Columns, in decoration, 44 
Combe, E., 164 

Commercial life, 181 f., 195, 207, 237, 
285 ff 

Condamin, P&re A., 129 
Contracts, 41, 109, 163, 183 
Copper, ratio of, to silver, 211 
Corvee, 193, 249, 253 
Courts, of justice, 40 f. ; of palace, 
28, 30, 40 f. 

Cowell, P. H., 257 
Craig, Prof. J. A. , 107 
Creation legends, 195, 306 
Croesus, king of Lydia, 282 
Ctesias, 21, 24, 4fc 
Ctesiphon, 5, 9, 11 
Cult-images, of kings, 206 
Cumont, Prof. Franz, 292, 312 
Cuq, Prof, l^ouard, 247, 250 
Curses, on boundary-stones, 246 f. 
Curtius Rufus, 47, 49 
Outhah, 146 f., 149, 159, 263 
Cyaxares, king of Media, 276, 278 f. 
Cylinder-seals, 127 f., 261, 271, 298 f. 
Cyprus, 290 
Cyrene, 278 

Cyrus, king of Persia, 282 ff., 286 ; 
in List, 321 



‘I'lNDEX • 827 


Bagan, 131, 136, 159 
Dagan-takala, Oanaanite prince, 132 
Dagon,god of Ashdod, 132 ; as Ba’al 
’ of* jfhana, 131 ; cult of, on 
Euphrates, 132 
Damascus, 11, 120, 262 
Damik-Adad, in Akkad, 249 
Damik-ilishu, king of Nisin, 93 f., 
• 97, 101, 153 ff., 209; in List, 

319 

Damki-ilishu, king of Second Dy- 
nasty, 208 f. ; in List, 320 
ifarius I. Hystaspis, king of Persia, 
7, 285 ^ ; in List, 321 
Darius II., king of Persia, 321 
Darius III., Codomanus, king of 
Persia, 287 ; in List, 321 
Date-formulae, 190 
Date-palm, cultivation of, 177 
David, 307 

Davies, N. de G., 223 
De Sarzec, E., 138 • 

Deification of kings, 206 
Delem, 141 

Delitzsch, Prof. Friedrich, 6, 33, 35, 
139, 151, 244 # 

Deluge, 114 f. 

Deportation, , Assyrian policy of, 
267 f. 

D6r, or Dflr-ilu, 145, 244, 253, 269 , 
Ddr ez-Zor, 129 f. 

Dhorme, P&re Paul, 281 
Diarbekr, 5 

Dieulafoy, Marcel, 80 f. 

Dilbat, 141 f., 159 ; site of, 141 
Dilinun, 6 
Diodorus, 48 f. , 81 
Diorite, from Magan, 6 
Dioscuri, 303 

Disease, Babylonian conception of, 
194 

Divination, 299 ; lamb for, 206 
Divorce, laws of, 185 f. 

Dog, of Gula, 297 ; votive figure of, 
147 

Double-dates, at Ntsin, 94 ff 
Draco, constellation, 292 
Dragon, of Matduk, 55, 261 ; of 
Nabfl, 79 ; of the deep, 195 
Dragon-combat, 306 
Dragons, of chaos, 195, 306 ; enam- 
elled, 61 f. ; bron 2 tf), 52 
Drainage, # Baby Ionian system of, 45 
Driver, Prof. S. R., 126 
Drowning, as penalty, 185 
Dudkhalia, Hittite king, 160, 240 
Dungi, king of Ur, 146 
Dfir-Abi-eshu\ on Tigris, 205 
Dfir-Ammi-ditana, on Ziiakum Canal, 
207 


# Dfir-Ammi-zaduga, on Euphrates, 
209 ’ 

Dfir-Ashur, in Zamua, 259 
Dftr-Enlil, in Sea-Country, 217 
Dftr-Gula-dftru, in Akkad, 148 
Dfir-gurgurri, on Tigris, 151, 189, 
191 

Dftr-Iabugani, in Akkad, 148 
Dfir-ilu ; see D5r 

Dftr-Kurigalzu, in Akkad, 248, 256 
Dftr-Lagaba, in Akkad, 148 
Dfir-muti, 149 
Dfir-Padda, in Akkad, 148 
Dfir-Papsukal, 264 
Dftr-Sin-muballit, 153 
Dftr-Sin-muballit-abim-walidia, 158 
Dftr-usi-ana-Ura, in Akkad, 148 
Dfir-Zakar, fortress of Nippur, 147 f., 
204 

Dushratta, king of Mitanni, 221, 234 
Dwellings, arAngement of, 41 f. 

E-anna, temple of Anu and Ishtar 
at Erech, 159, 211, 287 
E-anna-shum-iddina, governor . of 
Sea-Country, 256 f. » 

E-apsfl, temple of Enki at Eridu, 
158 

E-babbar, temple of Shamash at 

a ir, 110, 149, 159, 261 

ar, temple of Shamash at 
Larsa, 151, 159 • 

E-galmakh, temple at Nisin, 159 
E-gishshirgal, temple of Sin at Ur, 
169, 206 ; temple of Sin at Babylon, 
206 

E-ibianu, temple, 149 
E-kankal, temple of Lugal-banda and 
Ninsun at Erech, 211 
E-khulkhul, temple of Sin at Harran, 
276 

E-kiku, temple of Ishtar at Babylon, 
149 

E-kua, shrine of Marduk in E-sagila, 

72 • 

E-kur, temple of Enlil at Nippur, 
158 

E-kur-shum-ushabshi, priest, 261 
E-makh, temple of Ninmakh- in 
Babylon, 61 ff., 65 ; ground-plan 
of, 64 ; in plans, 23, 83 
E-makh, temple at Adab, 159 
E-malga-uruna, temple of Enlil at 
DOr -Enlil, 217 f. 

E-meslam, temple of Nergal at 
Cuthah, 149, 169 

E-mete-ursag, temple of Zamama at 
Kish, 169 t 

E-mishmish, temple of Ishtar at 
•Nineveh, 159 



828 INDEX 


E-n&mkhe, temple of Adad at Baby* * 
Ion, 165 

E-namtila, temple, 209 
E-ninnfl, temple of Ningirsu at 
Lagash, 163, 169, 299 
E-patntila, temple of Ninib at Baby- 
lon, 23 ; ground-plan of, 71 
E sagil-shadflni, reputed father of 
usurper, 250 

E-sagila, temple of Marduk at Baby- 
lon, 28 f., 37, 80 f„ 142, 149, 158, 
283 f., 286 f. ; remains of, 71 ff» ; 
excavation of, 20 f. ; orientation 
of, 69 ; plan of, 74 ; restoration of, 
75 ; in plan, 23 

E-temen-anki, temple-tower of E- 
sagila, 38, 60, 73 ff. ; plan of, 74 ; 
restoration of, 75 ; in plan, 23 ; 
see also Tower of Babylon 
E-ugalgal, temple of Adad at Bit- 
Karkara, Ir9 * 

E-ulmash, temple of Ishtar at Akkad 
(Agade), 159 

E-ulmash-8hakin-shum, king of Sixth 
Dynasty, 257 ; in List, 321 
E-zida, temple of Nabfr at Borsippa, 
16, 78 f., 159, 279; plan of, 78; 
bronze step from, 27, 77 
Ea, 73, 297 ; see also Enki 
Ea-gamil, king of Second Dynasty, 
211 f., 217 ; in List, 202 
Ea-mukirpzer, king of Fifth Dynasty, 
257 ; in List, 321 

Ea-nadin-[ . . . ], possibly king of 
Fourth Dynasty, 255 
Ecbatana, 8, 286 
Eclipses, solar, 257, 279 
Ecliptic constellations, 310 f. 

Edina, in S. Babylonia, 255 
Egypt, 1, 4, 38, 41, 219 if. ; and 
Canaan, 126 f., 219 ; and Syria, 
276 f. ; and Assyria, 269, 272 ; and 
Lydia, 283 ; and Persia, 285 ; and 
the Hittites, 234 if. ; as Asiatic 
power, 219 if. ; irrigation in, 172 ; 
boundary-records of, 247 ; in early 
Christian writings, 305 
Ekall&ti, 256 c 

Ekron, 270 

El-Birs, 15 ; see also Birs-Nimrhd 
El-Ohemir, see Ahimer 
Elam, 7 f., 133, 315 ; and the Western 
Semites, 7, 150 ff. ; and the later 
Kassites, 244, 252 ; in alliance 
with Babylon, 264, 269, 272 ; trade 
of, 5, 181 ; importations from, 
207 ; goddesses of, 296 ; systems 
of writing in, 2 ; in astrology, 

Eldred, John, 14 f. 


Electra, of Euripides, 293 
Elijah, 307 
Eltekeh, 270 

Emblems, divine, 65, 79, 297 ; on 
boundary- stones, 246 f. 

Emisu, king of Larsa, 89 f., 134 ; in 
List, 318 

Emutbal, 150, 154, 157, 198, 200 
Enamelled brickwork, 43 
Enamelling, process of, 57 
Enannatum, chief priest in Ur, 135 
Enki, 95, 155, 297 ; see also Ea, 
E-apsft 

Enlil, 95, 194 ; cult of, a^ Babylon, 
155, 206 ; see also E-kur, E-malga- 
uruna, Nippur 

Enlil -bani, king of Nisin, 148, 150 ; 
in List, 319 

Enlil-kudur-usur, king of Assyria, 
244 ; in List, 320 

Enlil-nadin-apli, king of Fourth 
Dynasty, 112, 254 f. ; in List, 320 
Enlil-nadin-shum, king of Third 
Dynasty, 244 ; tablets of time of, 
84 ; in List, 320 

Enlil-nirari, king of Assyria, 243 ; in 
List, 320 

Entemena, patesi of Lagash, 246 ; 

cult of deitied, 206 
Ephesus, 5 

Equinoxes, precession of, 312 
Erba-Marduk, king of Eighth 
Dynasty, 264, 269 ; in List, 321 
Erech, 11, 113, 135, 147, 155, 159, 
198 f., 287 ; local dynasty of, 211 ; 
Neo-Babylonian letter from, 281 
Ereslikigal, 304 

Eridu, 135, 147, 152 f., 155, 158 ; 
oracle of, 153, 158 

Esarhaddon, 139, 269, 271 f. ; Baby- 
lonian policy of, 271, 273 ; Black 
Stone of, 176 ; in List, 321 
Etana, 290 f. 

Ethics, Babylonian, 2 
Euphrates, 4 f., 185 ; change in course 
of, 30, 37 f.,'68; West Semitic 
settlements on, 157, 159 ; canaliza- 
tion of, 156 ; irrigation on, 173 f. 
Euphrates route, 4, 8 
Euripides, 293, 311 
Europe, Babylonian influence on, 12, 
289 

Euryalus, 309 • 

Eurymachus 309 
Eusebius, 114 f., 116, 276, 280 
Evil spirit, possession by, 240 
Exchange, medium of, 196 
Exorcist, Babylonian, 240 
Expansion -joint, in building, 19 
Ezekiel, 62, 304 



INDEX 329 


Faqadk, of Nebuchadnezzar’s Throne 
Room, 43 f. 

Falflja, 14 

Family-life, in Babylonia, 184 ff. 
F&ra, 85, 300 

Farming, Babylonian, 168 f. 

Famell, Dr. L. R., 314 
Feast, of New Year, 100, 254, 2.59, 
• 290, 302, 308 

Fetish, 294 

Fillets, in tern pie -decoration, 63 
fishes, constellation, 310 f. 
Fishing-rights, 171 
Flocks, t§ibute of, 168 
Fortification -walls, 28, 32 f. ; drain- 
age of, 46 

Foundation-deposits, 63 
Foxes, with firebrands, 307 
Frank, C., 176 
Frankincense, 62 
Frazer, Sir J. G., 290, 305, 3J>7 
Fries, Dr. Carl, 308 f. 

Gabbaku-ibni, in Sukhi, 266 
Gagum, Cloister of Sippar, 154, 207 
Gate-house, of palace, 40 
Gate-sockets, 63, 246 
Gates, of Babylon, 27 
Gaddash, see Gan dash 
Candash, founder of Third Dynasty, 
216 ; in List, 320 
Garrison-duty, 192 
Garstang, Prof. John, 230 
Gaugamela, 287 
Gaumata, the Magian, 285 f. 

Gaza, 282 

Genesis, 159 f., 305 

Geshtinna, goddess of the plough, 176 

Gezer, 126 

Gift, deeds of, 129 ff. 

Gilead, 305 

Gilgamesh, 212,308 ; legends of, 290 
Giniil-ilishu, king of Nisin, 134 ; in 
List 318 

Girsu, 152 f., 155, 159 

Glacial epoch, 124 

Goat-fish, of Enki, 297 

Gobryas, governor of Gutium, 283 ; 

see also Gubaru 
Golden Age, of Hesiod, 302 
Golden Lamb, legend of, 292 f., 311 
Goliath, 30J • 

Grain-drill, Babylonian, 176 
Granary, at Babylon, 158 
Greece, and Babylon, 12, 287, 290, 
314 ; and Persia, 286 f . 

Greek mythology, Babylonian influ- 
ence on, 12, 289, 315 
Greek names, as privilege, 287 
Greek theatre, at Babylon, 287 


Grooves, stepped, in temple-decora- 
tion, 63 

Gubaru, Babylonian general, 281 ; 

governor of Gutuim, 281, 283 f. 
Gudoa, patesi of Lagash, 6, 298 
Gufa, prototype of, 179 f. 

Gula, 297 

Gulkishar, king of Second Dynasty, 
112 f., 202, 212 ; in List, 320 
Gungunum, king of Larsa, 89 f., 
135 f. ; in List, 318 
Gunkell, Prof. II., 306 
Gutium, 139, 218, 283 
Gutschmid, A. von, 115 
Gypsum-plaster, as decoration, 43 

Hades, 308 
Hagen, O. E., 283 
Hakluyt, Richard, J5 
H alius, 309 # 

Hall, H. R., Ill, 126, 160, 219, 235, 
277 

Halys, 5, 229, 279 
Ilamuiam, in Syria, 127 
Hammurabi, king of First Dynasty, 
89 f., 99 ff., 103, 128, 130, 153 ff., 
156 f., 296; character of, 160 f. ; 
empire of, 158 f. ; Babylon of, 29, 
84 ff. ; palace of, 86 ; Code of, 1 54, 
158 f., 161 ff.. 252; letters of, 181, 
188 ff. ; date of, 94, 110 f. ; period 
of, 39, 162 ff., 315 ; in Lists, 319 f. 
Ilammurabi-khegallum Canal, 155 
Hammurabi-nukhush-nishi Canal, 
158 

Hammurabil), king of Khana, 130 
Hananiah, 1*4 
Handcock, P. S. P., 126 
Hanging Gardens, of Babylon, 46 ff., 
279 

Harbour, of Babylon, 36 
Harp, Sumerian, 298 
Harran, 276, 282 
Harftn-ar-Ra&hid, 11 
Hastings, Dr. James, 162 
Haverfield, Prof. F. J., 22 
Hebrew religion, 12 ; traditions, 159 ; 
law, 299 

Hebrews, altars of, 62 ; and Baby- 
lonian mythology, 289 
Helios, 307 
Hera, 290 
Heracles, 290 
Herds, tribute of, 168 
Herdsmen, Babylonian, 168 f. 
Herodotus, 4 f., 15, 21 f., 24, 26 f., 
38, 61 f., 72, 76 f., 81, 85, 167, 177, 
179, 276, 279 • 

Hesiod, 302 
Hehzey, Leon, 298 f. 



330 


INDEX 


Hezekiah, king of Judah, 270 
High places, Canaanite, 126 
Hilla, 14, 23 

Hilprecht, Prof. H. V., 91 f., 112, 
134, 156, 208, 212, 242 
Himyarite period, 121 
Hincke, Prof. W. J., 246, 250 
Hindiya Canal, 16 
Hipparchus, of Nicaea, 312 
Hire of laud, system of, 167 
Hit, 174 

Hittite correspondence, character o£, 
239 f. ; invasion, 3, 84, 210 ; 
states, 230 ; migration, 128 
Hittite Empire, rise of, 220 ; history 
of, 229 ff. ; fall of, 241 ; communi- 
* cations of , 5 ; as barrier, 314 
Hittites, 3, 128, 234 ff., 243 ; racial 
character of, 226 f. ; civilization of, 
227 f. ; art* of, 228, c 233 ; inscrip- 
tions and records of, 226 ff. 
Hogarth, D. G., 4 f., 120, 128, 276, 
278, 282, 314 ; Carchemish excava- 
tions of, 127 
Homer, see Odyssey 
Homera, mound of, 29, 31, 35 ; in 
plan, 23 

Horse, introduction of, 122, 198, 
215 f. 

Horses, export of, 224 
House -pi^perty, in Babylon, 84 
Houses, Babylonian, 184 
How, Walter W., 5, 7, 21 
Hrozny, F., 97 f., 150 
Huber, E., 134 
Humped cattle, 175, 202 
Huntington, Ellsworth, 121 
Hydra, constellation, 292 
Hydraulic machine, 48 
Hyksos, in Egypt, 132 f. 

iADi-khabum, antagonist of Samsu- 
iluna, 204 

Iakhzir-ilum, of Kazallu, 146 
lakin,* king of Sea-Country, 263 
Ialman, Mt., 259 
Ia’mu-Dagan, in Khana, J32 
Iashma(?)-Dagan, 132 
Iawium, vassal-ruler of Kish, 145 
Iazi-Dagan, of Khana, 131 
Ibkushu, priest, 94, 101 
Icarus, 290 
Idamaraz, 198 

Idin-Dagan, king of Nisin, 132, 134 ; 

in List, 318 
Igi-kharsagga, 155 

lgitlim, possibly a king of Khana, 

iSo 

ITuma-ila, vassal-ruler of Sippar, 143 
lluma-ilum, founder of Second 

r 


Dynasty, 104 f., 199 f., 205; in 
List, 320 

Ilu-shftma, king of Assyria, 136 
Image -worship, Babylonian, 294 ff. 
Imgur-Bel, wall of Babylon, 30 ff., 51 
Immer, suggested reading of Adad’s 
name, 150 

Immerum, vassal-ruler of Sippar, 143 
Incantations, 194 
Incense, 314 

India, and the Persian Gulf, 7; 

village communities of, 250 
India Office, Babylonian map issued 
by, 16 c 

Indra, Aryan god, 227 
Infant-sacrifice, 127 
Inheritance, laws of, 185 
Intercalary mouths, 189 f. 

Ionia, cities of, 279 
‘Irak, 9 f., 11 
Irani anjdateau, 5 
Iranians, groups of, 282 
Irnina Canal, 171 
Irrigation, method of, 176 f. 
Irrigation-machines, 172 ff. 
Irsit-Babili, city-square of Babylon, 
28 

Isaiah, 292 

Isharlim, king of Khana, 129 f. 
lshbi-Ura, founder of Dynasty of 
Nisin, 132 ff. ; in List, 318 
Ishin-aswad, mound, 84 ; in plan, 23 
Ishkhara, goddess, 297 
Ishkibal, king of Second Dynasty, 
202 ; in List, 320 
Ishkun-Marduk, city, 207 
Ishkur, suggested reading of Adad’s 
name, 150 

Ishme-Dagan, king of Nisin, 132, 
134 f. ; in List, 318 
Ishtar, of Akkad (Agade), 23 , 69 f. , 
83 f., 159 ; of Ashur, 20, 137 ; of 
Babylon, 80, 149 ; of Bit-Karkara, 
159 ; of Erech, 169 ; of Khallabu, 
159 ; of KibaLbarru, 155 ; of Kish, 
143 ; of Nineveh, 159, 221 f. ; and 
Tammuz, 290 ; Descent of, 304 ; 
lion of, 55, 58 T. ; representation 
of, 266 ; see also E-anna 
Ishtar Gate, at Babylon, 33 , 51 ff., 
67 ; beasts on, 50 f., 54 ff. ; section 
of, 53 ; restoration of, 28 ; ground- 
plan of, 52 ; in plans, 30, 57 
Isin, Dynasty of, 264 ff. ; original 
form of name of, 91, 254 ; see also 
Nisin 

Islam, 10, 120 
Israel, 12, 290 

It6r-pisha, king of Nisin, 148 ; in 
List, 318 



INDEX 331 


Itti-ili-nibi, king of Second Dynasty, 
208 ; in List, 320 

Itti-Marduk-balatu, Kassite chief 
minister, 237 

Itti-Marduk-bal&tu, the Aramean, 
256 

Iturmer, local god of Tirka, 131 

Jastrow, Prof. Morris, 191, 312 
Jensen, Prof. P., 112, 308 
Jerablus, 127 
Jeremiah, 277, 280 
Jeremias,®Dr. Alfred, 292, 304 f., 307 
Jericho, 126 
Jerusalem, 277, 280 
Jewish traditions, 313 f. 

Jews, captivity of, 277 ; of Baghdad, 
14 

Johns, Canon C. H. W\, 131, 145, 
162, 190, 304 
Johns, Mrs. C. H. W., 18 
Johnson, C. W., 179 
Jones, Capt. J. Felix, 17 
Jordan, 306 
Joseph, 305 • 

Josephus, 278, 280, 307 
Joshua, 305 f. 

Josiah, king of Judah, 276 
Judah, 270, 276 f. 

Judges, Babylonian, 188 
Jumjumma, 23 
Jupiter Ammon, 303 
Justi, Prof. Ferdinand, 215 
Justice, administration of, 188 f. 

Kadashman-Enlil I., king of Third 
Dynasty, 220 f., 241 f. ; in List, 
320 

Kadashman-Enlil II., king of Third 
Dynasty, 236 ff., 240, 243 ; in 
List, 320 

Kadashman-Kharbe I., king of Third 
Dynasty, 241 ; in List, 320 
Kadashman-Kharbe II., king of Third 
Dynasty, 244 ; in List, 320 
Kadashman-turgM, king of Third 
Dynasty, 236 f. ; in List, 320 
Kadesh, Battle of, 227, 235 
Kagmum, 157 

Kandalanu, king of ^abylon, 273 ; in 
List, 321 ; see Ashur-bani-pal 
KAr-bAl-mAtAti, 259 
KAr-Irnina, 171 
KAr-Ishtar, 243 

KAr-Shamash, 149 ; on Tigris, 158 ; 

on Euphrates, 207 
KAr-8ippar, 204 

Kara-indash I., king of Third Dynasty, 
221, 241 f. { in List, 320 


Kara-indash TI., king of Third 
Dynasty, 243 ; in List, 320 
Kara-Kuzal, 127 

Karashtu, Babylonian general, 255 
Karduniash, 244 
Karnak, 226, 235 
Kashbaran, 154 
Kashdakh, in Khana, 130 
Kashshft-nadin-akhi, king of Fifth 
Dynasty, 257 ; in List, 321 
KashtiliashL, king of Third Dynasty, 
217 ; in List, 320 

K ash t iliash II . , ki ng of Third Dynasty, 
243 f. ; in List, 320 
Kasr, mound, 14, 16 f., 21 ft’., 24, 
27 f., 30 ft'. ; buildings on, 28 ft. 
Kassites, 3, 130 f., 197 f., 214 ff. ; 
racial character of, 214 f. ; intro- 
duction of horse by, 215 f. ; 
Babylon of* 29 9 

Kazallu, 144 If., 149 
Keleks, early, 178 f. 

Kesh, 155, 159 
Khabilu, river, 156 
Khabkha-tribe, 267 ' , 

Kh&bftr, 129 ft., 260 
Khabur-ibal-bugash Canal, 130 
Khalambft tribe, 146 
Khalium, vassal-ruler of Kish, 145 
Khallabu, 152, ^59 
Khalule, 271 

Khana, kingdom of, 129 ft*., 157, 
210 f., 218 

Khanl, 210 ; see also Khana 
Khanirabbat, 222 

Khatti, Hittite capital, 229 ff. ; site 
of, 219 ; communications of, 5 ; 
use of term, 210 ; see also Hittites 
Khattusil I., Hittite king, 230 
Khattusil II.,, Hittite king, 236 ff., 
243 

Khinnatuni, in Canaan, 225 
Khonsu, Egyptian Moon-god, 222, 
238 ff. • 

Khorsabad, 176 • 

Khumbanigash, king of Elam, 269 
Khurpatila, king of Elam, 243 
Khurshitu, 212 
Khussi, 254 

Kibalbarru, 141, 144, 165 

Kidln-Khutrutash, king of Elam, 244 • 

Kikia, early rulor of Ashur, 139 * 

Kinunu, West-Semitio month, 131 

Kiriath-arba, 307 

Kirmanshah, 5 

Kish, 143 f., 159, 203 f. 

Kisurra, 85. 155, 199, 212 f. 

Knudtzon, Prof. J, A., 219, £21 f. 
.224 f., 230, 243 
I Kohler, Prof. J., 162 



332 


f 


INDEX 


Koldewey, Dr. Robert, 17 f., 23, 25, 
30, 32 f., 35, 4G ff., 50, 52 f., 67 f., 
74, 76 f., 80, 83 

Kudur-Enlil, king of Third Dynasty, 
243 ; in List, 320 

Kudur-Mabuk, ruler of Western 
Elam, 89, 113, 150 ff., 154, 156, 
159 ; Adda of Amurru, 152 
Kudur-Nankhundi, king of Elam, 
113 

Kudurrus, or boundary -stones, 24J., 
244, 245 ff. 

Kilfa, 9 f., 11 

Kugler, Dr. F. X., 106 ff., 116, 
3i0ff. 

Kurigalzu I., king of Third Dynasty, 
241, 243 ; in List, 320 
Kurigalzu II., king of Third Dy- 
nasty, 221, 224, 242 ; in List, 320 
Kurigalzu Ip., king, of Third Dy- 
nasty, 243 ; in List, 320 
Kussar, Hittite city, 230 
Kutir-Nakhkhunte, Elamite prince, 
244, 252 
Ipveiresh, 23 

Labashi-Marditk, king of Babylon, 
281 ; in List, 321 

Labynetus, 279 ; see Nebuchadnezzar 

ii. 

Lachish, 270 

Lagamal, goddess of Dilbat, 142 
Lagash, 147, 152 f., 155, 159, 212 f. 
Land, sale of, 195 f. 

Land-tenure, system of, 167, 249 ff. 
Landowners, Babylonian, 107 f. 
Langdon, 8., 37, 40, 52, 72, 92, 111, 
145, 276, 280, 282, 290 
Laodamas, 309 

Lapis-lazuli, at time of First Dy- 
nasty, 207 ; Kassite export of, 
224 

Larsa, Dynasty and kings of, 89 ff., 
110, 133 f., 147 f., 150 ff., 158 f., 
198, « 200 ; Sun-temple at, 135 ; 
tablets from, 156 

Law, Babylonian, 299 ; systematiza- 
tion of, 196 ; spread of, 237 f. 
Lawrence, T. E., 127 
Layard, Sir A. H., 17 f., 106, 295 f. 
Le Strange, G., 10 f. 

Lebanon, 72, 225 ; monolith from, 
203 f. 

Legends, 195 

Legislation , 2 ; see also Code, Law 
Lehmann-Haupt, Prof. C. F., 116 
Loo, constellation, 310 
LibiMdiegalla Canal, 30, 37 
Libit-Ishtar, king of Nisin, 134 ff. ; 
in List, 318 


Libit-Ishtar, governor of Sippar, 136 
Light-wells, 28, 44 
Lightning-fork, of Adad, 297 
Lion, of Ishtar, 55 
Lion Frieze, at Babylon, 30, 57 ff. 
Lions, of the Sun-god, 298 f. ; enam- 
elled, 44 

Lirish-gamlum, daughter of Rim- 
Sin, 156 

Litorature, Babylonian, 2, 194 f., 
299 

Liver-markings, 297 ; see also Divina- 
tion 

Lot, 305 1 

Lugal-banda, 211 
Lugal-diri-tugab, 148 
Lukhaia, on Arakhtu Canal, 205 
Lulubu, 255 

Lunar observations, 140 

Luxor, 235 

Lydia, 278 f., 282 f. 


Mac a lister, Prof. R. A. S., 125 
Madam, 9 f. 

Magan, 0 4J 

Magic, 240, 299 
Magical formula), 194 
Maitland, Gen. P. J., 121 
Makkedah, 305 
Mai gum, 154, 157, 159 
Manabaltel, king, 212 
Manana, vassal -king of Kish, 144 f. 
Manishtusu, Obelisk of, 247, 250 
Manufactories, royal, 41 
Mar-irsitim, of Nippur, 102 
Marad, 153 

Marduk, 14G, 207 ; rise of, 194 f. ; 
as creator, 306 ; in coronation- 
ceremony, 296 ; cult-images of, 
218, 244, 271 ; emblem of, 79 ; 
dragon of, 55, 261 ; representation 
of, 261 ; see also E-kua, E-sagila, 
E-temon-anki 

Marduk-akhi-erba, king of Fourth 
Dynasty, 257 ; in List, 321 
Marduk-aplu-iddinp, see Merodach- 
baladan 

Marduk -balltsu-ikbi, king of Eighth 
Dynasty, 264 ; in List, 321 
Marduk-bel-usato, brother of Mar- 
duk -nadin-sWim, 263 « 

Marduk-nadin-akhe, king of Fourth 
Dynasty, 112, 254, 256 ; in List, 
321 

Marduk-shakin-shum, father of Erba- 
Marduk, 264 

Marduk -shapik-zer-mati, king of 
Fourth Dynasty, 254, 256 ; in List, 
321 



INDEX 


333 


Marduk-Bhapik-zerim, king, possibly 
founder, of Fourth Dynasty, 254 ; 
in List, 321 

Marduk-zakir-shum, king of Eighth 
Dynasty, 261, 263 ; in List, 321 
Marduk - zakir - ahum, Babylonian 
rebel, 270 ; in List, 321 
• Marduk-z6r-[. . . ], king of Fourth 
Dynasty, 257 ; in List, 321 
Mari, 132, 157, 265 
Marriage, laws of, *186 f. ; for slaves, 
*166 f. 

Marriage-Contract, 130 
Marriage -portions, 185 
Marsh-dwellers, 202 
Marshes, Babylonian, 200 f. 

Mash kail- Ammi-ditana, 207 
Mashkan-shabri, 151, 159 
Mashtabba Canal, 156 
Maspero, Sir Gaston, 111, 277 
Mat tiuaza, king of Mitanni, 234 
Me-Enlil Canal, 207 
Mecca pilgrimage, 5 
Medea, 307 
Medes, 275 f., 282, 

Media, 278 f., 282 
Medicine, a branch of magic, 240 
Mediterranean, Eastern, 315 ; Eu- 
phrates route to, 4, 8 ; Assyria and 
the, 256, 273 

Mediterranean race, 125 f. 

Megiddo, 126, 276 
Meissner, Prof. B., 133, 139, 207 
Melam-kurkura, king of Second 
Dynasty, 202 ; in List, 320 
Moli-Shipak I., king of Third Dy- 
nasty, 241 f. ; in List, 320 
Meli-Shipak II., king of Third Dy- 
nasty, 176, 244 ; grant of land by, 
248 f. ; tablets of time of, 84 ; in 
List, 320 

Memphis, 272, 285 
Mera, 159 

Mercenaries, Greek, 277 f. 

Merkes, Mound, 16, 29, 82 ff. ; plan 
of, 83 ; in plan, 23 
Merodach-baladaif 1., king of Third 
Dynasty, 78 f., 244 ; boundary- 
stone of, 248 f. ; tablets of time 
of, 84 ; in List, 320 
Merodach-baladan IT* king of Baby- 
lon, 33, $69 f. ; in List, 321 • 
Mcslam, tomple of Mashkan-shabri, 
159 

Moyer, Prof. E., 6, 92, 104, 111, 114, 
116, 142, 150, 160, 207, 211, 215, 
220 i., 228 

Middle class, Babylonian, 164 f. 
Migrations, causes of, 121 f. 

Miahael, 14 


Mitanni, rulers of, 1 , 214 ; kingdom 
of, 220 f. ; and Babylon, 224 ; and 
the Hittites, 233 f. 

Mitannians, racial character of, 227 ; 

and Subartu, 139 f. 

Mithraic legends, 313 
Mitra, Aryan god, 227 
Moat, of Babylon, 25 f. 

Moat-walls, 30, 67 
Mohammed, 10 
Money-lenders, 189, 191 f. 

Months, Babylonian and Jewish, 
313 ; West-Semitic, 130 f. 

Moon, in astrology, 140 
Moses, 306 

Moslem conquest, 5, 9 
Mosul, 14 

Mother goddess, of Hittites, 228 
Muballitat-Sherha, Assyrian prin- 
cess, 243 * • 

Mukayyar, 135, 150 
M iiller, Prof. Friedrich Max, 310 
Mural decoration of temples, 69 f. 
Murray, Prof. Gilbert, 293 
Mursil, Hittite king, 234 f. • 

Mushezib-Marduk, king of Babylon, 
270 f. ; in List, 321 
Muski, 241 

Mutallu, Hittite king, 235 
Muti-khurshan«f antagonist of Sam- 
su-iluna, 204 • 

Mutilation, penal, 165 f. 

Mutum-ilu, of Nippur, 102 
Myres, Prof. J. L., 7, 121, 188 
Mysteries, religious, 314 
Mythology, astral, 291 f., 300 ff. 

Nabonassar, king of Ninth Dynasty, 
115, 267 f. ; in List, 321 
Nabonidus, king of Babylon, 281 ff., 
297 ; character of, 281 f. ; river-wall 
of, 37, 60, 74 ; chronology of, 
110 f. ; in List, 321 
Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, ^29, 
35, 261, 274 ff. ; palace of, £8, 30, 

38 f. ; quay-walls of, 32 ff., 36 ; 
bridge <Jf, 81 ; possible tomb of, 

66 f. ; in List, 321 

Nabft, 77 f. ; emblem of, 70. ; see also 
E-zida f 

Nabh-aplu-iddina, king of Eighth 
Dynasty, 257, 260 f. ; in List, 321 
Nabh-aplu-usur, see Nabopolassar 
Nabfl-kudurri-usur, see Nebuchad- 
nezzar 

Nabfi-mwkin-apli, founder of Eighth 
Dynasty, 258 f. ; in List, 1121 § 
Nabh-mukin-zcr, king of Babylon, 
€68 ; in List, 321 ; see also Ukin-zer 
Nabh-nadin-shum, priest, 261 # 



334 ' INDEX 


Nabh-nadin-z6r, king of Ninth Dy- 
nasty, 2$8 : in List, 321 
Nabft-na’id, see Nabonidus 
Nabfl-na§ir, see Nabonassar 
Nabft-shum-ishkun J., king of Eighth 
Dynasty, 259 ; in List, 321 
Nabft-shum-islikun II., king of Ninth 
Dynasty, 267 ; in List, 321 
Nabft-shum-libur, king of Fourth 
Dynasty ; in List, 321 
Nabh-shum-ukin, king of Ninth 
Dynasty, 268 ; in List, 321 
Nagitu, 270 
Naharain, 227 
Nahr-el-Kelb, 255 
Namar, 253 

Nana, image of, 113, 296 
Nanga, 153 
Nanking, 22 
Nannar, 141f 145, 154" 

Naplanum, founder of Larsa Dy- 
nasty, 89 f., 133 f. ; in List, 318 
Nar-sharri Canal, 154 
Naj-am-Sin, king of Akkad, 6 ; stole 
c of, 252 

Naram-Sin, vassal-ruler of Sippar, 143 
N&satya-twins, Aryan deities, 227 
Nausicaa, 308 

Nazi-bugash, Kassite usurper, 243 ; 
in List, 320 < 

Nazi-mamttash, king of Third Dy- 
nasty, 175, 243, 248 ; in List, 320 
Nebuchadnezzar I., king of Fourth 
Dynasty, 112, 245, 252 ff., 296; in 
List, 321 

Nebuchadnezzar II., king of Babylon, 
6 f., 276 ff. ; palace of, 14, 28, 30, 
38 ff. ; throne-room of, 28, 42 ff. ; 
buildings of, 32 f., 52, 73, 279 f. ; 
bronze-step of, 27, 77 ; in List, 321 
Necho, king of Egypt, 277 
Neolithic age, in Canaan, 124 f. 
Nergal, 148 f., 211 ; see also E-meslarn 
Nefgal-shar-usur, see Neriglissar 
NergaLsharezer, the Itab-mag, 280 ; 
see Neriglissar 

Nergal-ushezib, king of Babylon, 270 ; 
in List, 321 

Neriglissar, king of Babylon, 72, 
280 f. ; bridge of, 37 ; in List, 321 
New Year, see Feast 
Nidintu-Bdl, rebel leader, 286 
Nikarkos (Anu-uballit), 287 
Nil Canal, 22 f. 

Nimitti-Bel, wall of Babylon, 30 f., 
32 ff., 51 
Nin-Nisin, 148 
Nin-oinna, 141 

Nin&z, 164 , 

Ninegal, 166 


Nineveh, 4 f., 21, 157 ff, 221, 321, 
walls of, 276 

Ningirsu, 298 ; emblem of, 297 ; see 
also E-ninnft 

Ninib, 70 f. ; see also E-patutila 
Ninib-kudur-usur, king of Sixth 
Dynasty, 257 ; in List, 321 
Ninlil, 94, 101 

Ninmakh, of Babylon, 30, 52, 67, 
148 ; see also E-makh 
Ninmakh, of Kesh, 155 
Ninni,or Ishtar, 165 ; see also lshtar 
Ninsun, 211 

Nippur, 104 f., 135, 147, i49 f., 155, 
158, 199, 202, 204, 244 ; and the 
suzerainty, 147 ; deification at, 206 ; 
effect of Babylon’s control of, 194 f. ; 
tablots from, 92 ff., 101 f., 104, 114, 
156, 245 

Nisin, 151, 159, 198, 200, 208 f. ; 
Dynasty of, 91, 103 f., 110, 132 ff. ; 
fall of, 154 ; era of, 92 f., 97, 103 ; 
reading of name of, 91 
Nobles, Babylonian, 163 f. 

Nomads, of Arabia, 121 ff. 

Northern Citadel 1 , of Kasr, 57 f. 
Nubia, 285 ; gold of, 224 
Numbers, sacred character of, 307 
Nfir-Adad, king of Larsa, 89 f., 150 ; 
in List, 319 

Oannes, 309 
Oath -formulae, 143 
Odysseus, 308 f. 

Odyssey, 308 

Officers, semi-military, 192 
Officials, 181, 192 f. 

Omayyad Caliphate, 10 f. 

Omen -texts, 140, 210 

Omens, 297 ; taking of the, 191 ; 

astronomical, 106 f. 

Opis, 256, 283 
Oppert, Jules, 17, 22, 287 
Oracle, of Eridu, 153, 158 
Orientation, of temples, 69 
Orontes, 235, 277 
Ovid, 307 , 

Oxen, bronze, 62 

Padan, 218 

Pagirum, of Khana, 129 
Palacps, Neo-$abylonian,<27 f., 38 ff., 
45 ; in plan, 30 

Palaeolithic age, in Canaan, 124 
Palestine, 159, 220, 225 ff, 304, 316; 

excavations in, 123, 125 f. 

Palestine Exploration Fund, 125 
Palm-trunks, as pillars, 44 
Palmettos, in Neo-Babylonian deco* 
ration, 44 



INDEX 


335 


Pan, 293 

Panelling, in Neo-Babylonian deco- 
ration, 69 

* Pantheon, revision of, 194 f. 

Paphos, 290 

Papsukal, 63 

Parthian Empire, 9 ; period, 82 

• Partnerships, for trade , 182 f . 
Passport, Babylonian, 220, 226 
Pastoral life, in Babylonia, 109 
Pelusium, 277, 286 
tenelope, 309 

Peribolo^ of E-temen-anki, 73 ff. ; 
plan of, 74 ; restoration of, 76 ; in 
plan, 83 

Persephone, 304 f. 

Persepolis, 8, 299 f . 

Persia, 6 f. ; Achsemenian kings of, 
2, 282 ff. 

Persian Gulf, traffic on, 6 f . , 280 
Persian period, Babylon of, 82 f. 
Peshgal-daramash, king of Second 
Dynasty, 202 ; in List, 320 
Petrie, Prof. W. M. Flinders, 111 
Plieeacians, 308 f. # 

Pharaoh, 306 f. 

Philistines, 307 
Philo, 310 

Phoenicia, 62, 225, 236, 277 
Phrygians, 241 
Phulus, 116 
Physicians, 240 
Pietro della Valle, 16 
Pinches, Dr. T. G., 212 
Pindiya, 139 
Place, Victor, 176 
Plough, Babylonian form of, 176 f. 
Ptjebel, A., 102, 104, 114, 132, 135, 
148, 166, 190, 204, 206, 208 
Poetry, Babylonian, 2 
Pognon, IL, 142 
Pollux, star, 310 
Polybus, 309 
Pompen, 69 

Poros, of Ptolemaic Canon, 116 
Porphyriup, 11 G 
Porter, Sir Robert Ker, 17 
Pricos, in kind, 196 
Priesthood, 189 f. 

Priests, Egyptian, 238 ff. 

Priests’ apartments, # 04 
PrincipaFCitadel, of Kafir, 57* f. 
Procession Street, 59 f . ; sec also 
Sacred Road 

Proto-Mitannians, 128, 140 
Pteria, 283 

Ptolemaic Canon, 266, 268 
Puchstein, Otto, 220, 229 ff., 232 f., 
234 f . 

Pukhia, king of Khurshitu, 212 


Pulu, king of Babylon, 116, 267 f. ; in 
List, 321 ; see also Tiglath-pileser 
IV. 

Pumpelly, Raphael, 121 
Puzur-Ashur, king of Assyria, 242 f. : 
in List, 320 

Quay-walls, at Babylon, 32 ff. 

Rab-mag, 280 
Rabikum, 154, 168 * 

Rabim, 171 

Radau, H., 245 # 

Rahaba, 130 

llakhabu, 191 

Ram, constellation, 310 f. 

Rameses II., king of Egypt, 222, 
226, 235, 239 f. 

Rameses III.* king of Egypt, 228 
Rammanu, “the thunderer,” 150 
Ramps, on Kasr, 30, 39, 57 ; or stair- 
ways, to roofs of temples, 64 
Ramsay, Sir W. M., 4 
Ranke, H., 136 • 

Raphia, 269 

Rassam, Hormuzd, 17, 141 
Rawlinson, George, 176 
Rawlinson, Sir H. C., 40, 52, 72, 106, 
111, 113, 150*ff, 153, 155, 245, 287 
Rebecca, 306 * 

Rod Sea, 306 
Reliefs, bronze, 207 
Rennet, Major, 17 
Rent, in kind, 167, 195 
•Reports, to king, 168 
Reuther, O., 30, 70 
Revenue, 168 
Ria, Elamite god, 253 
Ribanish , 26G 
Riblah, 277 
Rich, C. J., 17 

Rim-Sin, king of Larsa, 88 ff, 97, 
99 ff, 101, 103, 151, 153ff.,*L98; 
wives and daughters oF, 156; 
double-dates of, 94 f. ; in List, 319 
Rim-Sin-Rhala-bashtashu, wife of 
Rim-Sin, 156 

Ritti-Marduk, captain of chariots, 
252 f. 

Ritual, Babylonian, 2 * 

River-fortification, at Babylon, 30, 
32, 37, 82 

River- wall, of Nabonidus, 37, 74 
Road-making, 249 
Rock-sculptures, Hittite, 228 
Rogers, Prof. R. W., History of, 14 f. 
Rome, 15, 307 " 

Roofs, of Babylonian dwellings, 42 
Rosellini, N.F.I.B., 238 f. 



336 * INDEX 

c 


Rosettes, in Neo-Babylonian decora- 
tion, 44 

Royal Road, 4 f., 230 
Rubatum, 153 


Sab^an kingdom, 121 
Sabdanu, brother of Nabft-aplu- 
iddina, 260 
Sabum, 199 

Sacred Road or Way, in Babyloh, 
37. 39, 47, 51, 73, 80, 83 ; in plans, 
30, 57, 74, 83 ; in restoration, 28 
Sadyattes, king of Lydia, 279 
Saggaratum, 204 
Sailors, 180 f. 

Sajilr, 129 

Sakhn, 73; in plan, 23 
§alihiya, 129 

Salmu, messenger of BUrna-Buriash, 
'225 

Samaria, 269 
Samarra, 11 
Samson, 307 

S4tasu-ditana, king of First Dynasty, 
209 ff. , in List, 320 
Samsu-iluna, king of First Dynasty, 
84, 89 f., 97 f., 100 ff., 104 f., 148 ; 
reign of, 197 ff. ; estimate of, 205 ; 
letter of, 171 ; image of deified, 
209 ; in*Lists, 319 f. 
Samsu-iluna-khegallum Canal, 197 
Samsu - iluna - nagab - nukhush - nishi 
Canal, 197 

Samuel, I. Book of, 307 
Samum, king of Larsa, 89 f., 134 , 
in List, 318 

Sandbanks, ancient, in Euphrates, 37 
Sangar, king of Carcheniish, 260 
Sarah, 305 

Sarakos, 276 ; see also Sin-shar- 
ishkun 
Sardis, 282 f. 

Sarg&n, king of Akkad, 6, 127, 145 
Sargon, king of Assyria, 6, 32 ff , 36, 
269 ff ; in List, 321 
Sargonids, Babylonian polfcy of, 4 
Sarpanitum, 146, 218 
Sarre, Prof. Friedrich, 130 
Sassanian kings, 9 f . 

Saturn, planet, 313 
Saunders, Telawney, 17 
Sayce, Prof. A. H., 106, 126, 150, 
160 

Scheftelowitz, Isidor, 227 
Scheil, Pdre V., 80, 95, 134, 139, 
147. 156, 162, 212, 248, 281 
Schena, 308 

Schiarparelli, G. V., 107, 313 ‘ 

Scho^e, Dr. Richard, 17 


Schorr, M., 129, 131, 143, 163, 190, 
208 

Schrader, Eberhard, 72, 219, 241 
Schumacher, Dr. G., 125 
Schwartz, E., 114 
Scorpion, of Ishkhara, 297 
Scourging, as punishment, 165 
Scribes, 183 
Scylax, of Caryanda, 7 
Scythia, 286 
Scythians, 274 f. 

Sea-Country, 200 ff. ; kings of, 103 ff, 
199 ff., 209; Kassite conquest of, 
217 f. ; Shalmaneser III. in, 263 
Selby, Commander W. Beaumont, 
17 

Seleucia, 5, 8, 287 
Seloucus, 7, 287 
Sellin, Dr. E., 125 f. 

Semite, as adapter, 2 f. 

Semites, as nomads, 121 ff. ; see also 
Western Semites 
Semitic migrations, 10 
Seneca, 301 

Sennacherib, king of Assyria, 6, 36, 
00, 82, 174 f., 256, 270 f., 276 ; 
Babylonian policy of, 273 ; in 
List, 321 
Serapis, 73 
Sergi, Giuseppe, 126 
Serpens, constellation, 292 
Serpents, bronze, 72 
Service-rooms, for temple-shrines, 64 
Seti I., king of Egypt, 235 
Sha-marnitu, 258 f. 

Shabaka, king of Egypt, 269 
Shadduf, in Mesopotamia, 172 
Shadudu, of Sukhi, 200 
Shag-dugga, 207 

Shagarakti-Shuriash, king of Third 
Dynasty, 243 ; in List, 320 
Slmgga, 191 
Shakanim, 171 
Shakhna, 203 
Shala, of Ekall&ti, 256 
Shalibi, 156 

Shalmaneser I., kinfe of Assyria, 139, 
243 

Shalmaneser III., king of Assyria, 
257, 259 ff. ; Gates of, 262 ff. 
Shalmaneser W, king of c Assyria, 
268 if. ; see also Ululai 
Shamaia, Elamite priest, 253 f. 
Shamash, see Sun*god, E-babbar 
Shamash -erba, rebel leader, 286 
Shamash -khegallum Canal, 146 
Shamash-mudammik, king of Eighth 
Dynasty, 258; in List, 321 • 
Shamash*r6sh-usur, governor of 
Sukhi and Mari, 265 ff. 



INDEX 


337 


Shamash-shum-ukin, king of Baby- 
lon, 31, 271 ft. ; in List, 321 
Shamshi-Adad III., king of Assyria, 
256 

Shamshi-Adad IV., king of Assyria, 
129, 131, 264 

Shamfta, Elamite priest, 253 f. 

Shatt Atshar, 17 
Shatt el- ‘Arab, 9 f. 

Shatt el-Hai, 9 f. 

Sheep-shearing, 168 
Shepherds, in Babylonia, 168 
Sherg&t, 19 ; excavations at, 137 
ShewbreA, 62 

Shilanum-Shukamuna, king of Sixth 
Dynasty, 258 ; in List, 320 
Ships, Babylonian, 180 f. ; of Senna- 
cherib, 6, 270 
Shirley, Anthony, 15 
Shrines, of temples, 64 
Shu-numum-dar Canal, 154 • 
Shubareans, 139 
Shubartu, 139 ; see also Subartu 
Shubbiluliuma, founder of Hittito 
Empire, 230, 233 f. 
Shunu’-rammu, 12? 

Shuruppak, 85, 212 f., 300 
Shushinak, 296 

Shushshi, king of Second Dynasty, 
202 ; in List, 320 

Shutruk-Nakhkhunte, king of Elam, 
244, 252 

Si[ . . . ]-Ninni, wife of Rim-Sin, 156 
Sibir, king, probably of Eighth 
Dynasty, 259 f. ; in List, 321 
Sidon, 277 

§ili~ Adad, king of Larsa, 89 f., 150 f. ; 
in List, 319 

Silver, as currency, 195 f. ; purchas- 
ing power of, 211 ; its ratio to 
copper, 211 

Simmash-Shipak, king of Fifth 
Dynasty, 257, 261 ; in List, 321 
Simi>licu*8, 116 

Sin, 145, 148, 159, 206 ; see also 
E-gishshirgal, E-khulkhul 
Sin-gamil, king of Erech, 211 
Sin-gashid, king of Erech, 211 
Sin-idinnam, king of Larsa, 89 f., 
99, 150 ; in List, 319 
Sin-idinnam, governor of Larsa, 157, 
296 • 

Sin-ikisham, king of Larsa, 89 f., 99, 
148, 151 ; in List, 319 
Sin-iribam, king of Larsa, 89 f., 151 , 
in List, 319 

Sin-magir, king of Nisin, 151 ; in 
List, 319 

Sin-magir, father-in-law of Rim-Sin, 

156 


Sin-muballit, king of First Dynasty, 
92, 103, 151 ft. ; in Lists, 319 f. 
Sin-muballit Canal, 153 
Sin-shar-ishkun, king of Assyria, 
273, 276 ; in List, 321 
Sin-shum-lishir, king of Assyria, 
273 ; in List, 321 

Sin jar, village on site of Babylon, 
23 f., 35 

Sippar, 37, 134, 136, 142 ft., 149, 
.154 f., 158 f., 171, 192, 197, 200, 
204, 207, 244, 257, 268, 282 f. ; 

of Shamash, 256 ; of Anunitum, 
‘256 
Sivas, 5 

Skinner, Prof. J., 160 
Slaves, 48, 139, 165 ft, 192 
Smerdis, 285 ; see Bardiya 
Smith, George, 80, 106 
Sodom, 305 » * 

Solomon, brazen altar of, 62 
Soothsayers, 191 
Soul, Hymn of the, 305 
Southern Citadel, of Babylon, .24, 
27 f., 38 If., 57 f. ; conjectural 
restoration of, 28 ; plan of, 30 
Sparta, 283 

Spear-head, of Marduk, 79, 297 
Spirits, evil, 194 

Stairways, of $-temen-anki, 76 f. ; 

or ramps, 57, 64 f. . 

Stein, Sir M. Aurel, 121 
Stilus, of Nabd, 79, 297 
S^ene-engraving, Babylonian, 261 

I tore-chambers, in temples, 64 
trabo, 47 f. 

Strassmaier, Father J. N., 278 

Streck, Prof. M., 256 

Streets, of Babylon, 29, 82 ft., 184 

Stucken, E., 292 

Su tribes, 135 

Su-abu, 136 ; see Sumu-abum 
Subartu, 157 ; as early geographical 
term, 139 ; in later tradition, ,240 ; 
non- Iranian population of, Jl4: 
Sugagi, 243 
Sukhi, 154, 260, 265 
Sukhi Canal, 266 
Sumer, 3, 10 f., 20, 244 
Sumerian towns, character of, 85 
Sumerians, 134, 137 1, 201 f. ; litera- 
ture of, 194 f. 

Sumu-abum, founder of First Dy- 
nasty, 117, 136, 141 ft. ; in Lists, 
318, 320 

Sumu-ditana, vassal-ruler of Kish, 
145 

Sumu-ilum, king of Larsa, f., 
J147 f., 150 ; as king of Ur, 147 f. ; 
in List. 318 



838 ' 


INDEX 


Sumu-la-ilum, king of First Dy- 
nasty, 143, 145 ff ; estimate of, 
148 f . ; fortresses of, 204 ; in ListB, 
318, 320 

Sumu-la-ilum Canal, 146 
Sun-god, cult of, at Babylon, 149 ; 
as Ba’al of Khana ; see also E- 
babbar 

Sun -god Tablet, 261 
Surgeons, Babylonian, 193 f. ; fees 
of, 165 

Susa, fc, 8, 14?, 273, 282, 287 
Susiania, 2, 286 
Suta, 243, 25G f. 

Swamps, in S. Babylonia, 200 f. 
Symbolism, Babylonian, 298 f. 
Syncellus, 114 

Synchronistic History, 241 ff., 265 
Syria, 11, 127 f., 157, 220, 225 ff., 
234 ff., 241 f 262, 8J.5 ; grain-drill 
of, 176 ; trade with, 4, 182 ; ira- | 
portations from, 207 

Tables, for offerings, 62 
T^inmuz, god, 290, 304 f. 
Tamtum-khegallum, J49 
Tariff, commercial, 211 
Tarkundaraba, king of Arzawa, 230 
Tarring the head, as punishment, 131 
Tashshi-gurumash, king of Third 
Dynasty, 21 H ; in iList, 320 
Taurus, range, 4, 225, 229 f., 262 
Taurus, constellation, 293, 311 
Tax-collectors, l9i f. 

Taxes, 248 f. ; in kind, 195 1 

Tearing in pieces, as punishment] I 

170 

Teiresias, 308 

Tell ‘Ainran-ibn-‘Ali, 16, 22 f., 72, 
85 ; excavation of, 73 
Tell ‘Ashar, 129 

Tell el-Amarna, 219 ; letters from, 
132, 219 ff, 239 f. 

TeHjTshar, see Tell ‘Ashar 
Tell Stfr, 92, 98, 102, 198 f. 

Tello, 20, 138, 140, 147 
Temple-decoration, 62 f. <pi# 
Temple-revenues, 191 f. 

Temple towers, form of, 78 ff. 

Temples at Babylon, 61 ff. 

Teredon, 280 

Teritum, West-Semitic month, 131 

Teshshub-’ari, 139 

Teshub, 139, 228 

Teumman, king of Elam, 272 

Thales, of Miletus, 279 

Thebes, 219, 240, 272 

Theft, penalties for, 164, 169 f. ; 

compensation for, 169 f., 172, 182 
Thompson, R. C., 140, 285 f. 


Thothmes IV., king of Egypt, 221 
Throne-room, of Nebuchadnezzar II., 
42 ff. ; in restoration, 28 ; plan of, 
42 

Thureau-Dangin, F., 89, 98, 105, 
129, 143, 145, 147, 150 ff , 155 f., 
211 f., 217, 242 f., 299 
Thyestes, 292 f. 

Tiamat, 306 f. 

Tidal, king of “nations,” 159 f. 
Tiglath-pileser I., king of Assyria, 
112, 254, 256 

Tiglath-pileser IV., king of Assyria, 
116, 267 f. ; policy of, 967 f. ; in 
List, 321 

Tigris, 4 f. ; canalization of, 151, 156 ; 
irrigation on, 172 f. ; navigation 
of, 6 f., 287 ; damming of, 205 
Time-division, system of, 289 
Time-reckoning, systems of, 97, 190, 
215 , 

Tirka, 129 ff 

Tishit-Enlil Canal, 155 

Tower of Babel, see Babel 

Tower of Babylon, see E-temen-anki 

Towers, on walls of Babylon, 26, 31 ; 

in temple-decoration, 63 
Town-life, 183 f. 

Town-planning, 85 f . 

Trade, 181 ff. ; profits of, 182 f. 
Trade-routes, 4 f., 127, 315 
Transport, by water, 170 
Trefoils, in Babylonian decoration, 
44 

Tribal proprietorship, of land, 167, 
250 f . 

Tribute, collection of, 191 f. 
Tu’am&nu tribe, 266 
Tukulti-Ashur, king of Assyria, 244 
Tukulti-Ninib I., king of Assyria, 
244 ; in List, 320 

Tukulti-Ninib II., king of Assyria, 
259 f. 

Tupliash, 157 ; *ee also Ashnunnak 
Turi-Dagan, of Khana, 132 
Turkey, 214 
Turukkum, 157 
Tutu-khegallum Canal, 153 
Tutul, 159 
Tuz-khurmati, 212 
Tylor, Prof. E. B., 177, 294 
Tyre, 270, 277 ‘ 

Ugarit, 237 

Ukin-z6r, 116; see also Nabff-mukin- 
zer 

Ula-Burariash, see Ulam-Buriash 
Ulam-Buriash, Kassite chieftain, 
217 f. 



INDEX 


Ululai, king of Babylon, 268 ; in 
LiBt, 321 ; see Shalmaneser V 
Umma, 212 f. 

Umman-manda, 276 
Umman-menanu, king of Elam, 271 
Ungnad, Prof. A., 92, 98, 129 f., 132, 
139, 143, 145, 162, 190, 215 f. 
Up6ri, of Dilmun, 6 

* Ur, 89, 134 f., 147, 150 f., 152, 155, 
159, 198 f. ; latest dynasty of, 11, 
113, 133 ; college of votaries at, 
. 186, 281 

Ur-kingala, scribe, 101 f. 

Ur-Nini, king of Nisin, 135 f., 147 ; 
in List, 318 

Ura-irnitti, king of Nisin, 148; in 
List, 318 

Urartians, 1 f., 265 
Urartu, 265, 269, 275 
Urash, of Dilbat, 142, 159 
Urtaku, king of Elam, 272 
Ushpia, founder of temple of Ashir, 
139 ; see also Aushpia 
Ushshi, king of Third Dynasty, 217 ; 

in List, 320 
Usipara, 211 * 

Van, Lake, 1, 265 
Varnna, Aryan god, 227 
Vassal- cities, Babylon’s treatment of, 
143 f. 

Vaulted building, at Babylon, 46 ff. ; 
plan of, 46 

Venus, observations of, 106 If., 312 
Vestibules, to temples, 64 
Virgo, constellation, 310 
Virolleaud, Ch., 107 
Volutes, in Neo-Babylonian decora- 
tion, 44 

Votaries, privileges of, 186 ff. ; of 
Sun-god, 128 ; at Ur, 186, 281 
Votive offerings, 207 

W ill, Captain of the, 32 
Walls, of Babylon, 21 ff. 
Warad-Ibari, Kassite, 215 
Warad-Sin, king of Larsa, 89 f., 113, 
150 ff., 169 ; *in List, 319 
Warka, 211 
Wash, 9 f. 

Water-supply, of palace, 44 f., 50 
Water-wheels, 1731. 

Watzinger, Dr. C., 126 • 

Weather-god, Bull of, 65 
Weber, Prof. Otto, 219 
Wedge, of Nabft, 79, 297 
Weidner, E. F., 292 
Weights, 195 

Weissbach, Prof.F. H. f 24, 151, 242, 
265, 286 


•j339 

Wells, J., 6, 7, 21 
Wells, in palace, 44 f., 48 ; in temple, 
66 

Western Semites, 3, 12, 201, 335 ; in 
Babylonia, 132 ff, 142, 162 ff. ; on 
the Khabftr, 129 ff. ; at Ashur, 

141 ; origin of, 119 f. ; names of, 

142 ; aristocracy of, 163 f. ; culture 
of, 132 f. 

Wetzel, F., 30, 74 
Widows, rights of, 185 
Windows, absence of, 41 f., ^4 
Wife, position of, 18fl^ 

Winckler, Hugo, 97, 216, 219 f., 227, 
234, 236, 238, 241, 245, 278, 
291 ff., 311 

Women, status of, 185 ff. 

Women's apartments, in palace, 45 
Woolley, C. L., 127 
World-Ages, 302, 311, 313 


Xerxes I., king of Persia, 41, 286 ; 
in List, 321 

Xerxes II., king of Persia, 321 
Xisuthros, 308 * # 

Yah we, 62, 307 

Yale Babylonian Collection, 94 f., 
156, 254 

Yasili Kaya, 2K8 
Year, naming of the, 190 


#‘Z. ” temple known as, 68 f., 84 ; 
| plan of, 68 ; restoration of, 69 ; 
9 position in plan, 23 
Zab&ia, king of Larsa, 89 f., 135 ; in 
List, 318 


! Zabilum, 156 
Zabshalf, 136 

Zabum, king of First Dynasty, 149 
in Lists, 319 f. 

Zabzallat, 243 
Zagros, Gates of, 5 
Zakar, 147 
Zakar-dnda, 153 
Zakku-^itlim, 130 
Zakku-Isharlim, 130 
Zamama, 143, 145 ;„<Jourt (or Ter- 
race) of, 80 ; see E-mfetaMirsag 
Zamama-shum-iddin, king |>f Thirtl 
Dynasty, 244 f. ; in List,fe20 
Zambia, king of Nisin, 150 \ in List, 
319 

Zamua, 259 
Zanki, 255 
Zarkhanum, 203 

Zebu, or humped oxen, 175, %)2 f. 

• Zedekiah, king of Judah, 277 



il^ubbal^ 313?' 

Zetts Bd[uB, 38 

Ztatum, aoribe, #3 

gjWfww* H ; m Temple-tower* 

aHcnm, city, 207 

ZihJttun Canal, 207 


■ ; ZiitadUm, ftxrf. tff , 8fl0 ' 

Zodiac, wgns of the, 310 ff. 

Zuliya, Mitannian iume, 139 

C; Zi«sSfSy^2ir ibly king of 

.[• • • . .]-[Bu>iaeh, king of Third 
Dynasty, 242 ; in Li*t, 320 


THE END 

f 

n 

i